Slashdot Mirror
Puncturing the "PCs Are Cheaper Than Macs" Myth
jcatcw writes "The recently converted Scot Finnie went notebook shopping. At the high end of the notebook spectrum, in order to get comparable power and features, a Dell machine comes in $650 over the Apple, and it was clunkier and weighed more. Sony couldn't beat the Apple either. Midrange and low-end machines, though, turn out to be pretty comparable, with more choices in the PC arena but some good values if you happen to want what Apple has decided you need. So, if you're talking name-brand hardware, it's just no longer the case that PCs are cheaper than Macs."
I can get beige custom boxes for cheaper than both Dell and Mac, especially when not shopping for CeleronD based boxes [which are probably sold at a loss to get the foot in the door].
Maybe not laptops, but who cares. Been my experience though that Dell laptops of decent spec [but not high end] are cheaper than Macs.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
This really only held true when Macs were primarily desktop machines. The good laptop market has always been expensive.
Scot makes some great points about the high end and even the mid-range, but suggesting that Apple is competitive on the low end is just ludicrous. I'd call the low end $500-$1000. Apple's not even in that market.
This has been the case for some time, but is masked by Apple's lack of a low end model (so they don't offer things at the sub $500 price point).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Figure out what you need and shop around. Don't pass by Apple because you think it's too expensive. You may be surprised that Apple, for the machine you're looking for, is actually more cost effective.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
All this shows is that Vaios and Inspirons are way, way overpriced.
Why don't you compare the Mac to something from AOpen, Acer, or even eMachines?
Hell, even Gateway or HP.
They're all just as "similary equipped".
You cant specifically compare overpriced shiny crap to overpriced shiny crap and say you "punctured the myth".
And you can't compare Best Buy's jacked up retail prices to the Apple store. Hop online and see what it would truly cost you, the geek. I don't know where I can get discount Macs online.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I priced out an 4 core x 2 Mac vs. a comparable Dell system and the Dell came out about $1000 more. Conversely in the really low-end bargain basement segment, there are lots of new great PCs you can get with a monitor for $600, which you would be hard pressed to find from Apple.
That's the name of the game when I'm shopping for a laptop. I want to be able to do work, and play some WoW (sometimes I feel that it overlaps...) on a machine, and that doesn't require a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo, nor does it even require a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo. Unfortunately, when building an Apple machine, one cannot (yet?) go for a slower processor, less storage space, in favor of a better GPU, battery, etc. I was in this exact situation, drooling over a Macbook for a few weeks before I customized an HP laptop to perfectly fit my needs.
I still have friends to this day, my age - low 30s, who STILL believe and say
- Apple computers costs so much more
- There are no applications for Apple computers
- They are harder to use
- I can't get used to them
- They use a 1 button mouse, what's up with that!?
- I don't believe Apple computers aren't more secure!
Ignorance is truly bliss.
Today, when someone asks me what computer to buy, I tell them straight out, buy an Apple computer.
When they spew that PC speech, I simple tell them: "In 6 months, when you're computer is infested with spyware, popups, and other garbage, do NOT call me to come and fix it".
I find it interesting they compared the much smaller notebook market and ignored desktops. Desktops are far and away the more common form of personal computing, and in that arena the PC blows away the Mac in terms of performance per dollar.
Apple computers may be as cheap as comparable PCs, but at which cost? I know many Macbook owners who have severe problems with the quality of the hardware. And the variety is very limited.
www.system76.com sells laptops that are cheap and powerful and come preloaded with ubuntu. No wasting money on a mac/windows license. Of course, this article neglected that.
PC laptops are horrendously overpriced, which now matches Mac lineups.
Honestly, if you are looking at value, build a desktop. Unfortunately, with a laptop, you are stuck with whatever options you might be able to select, which on a Mac is even less than through sellers like Dell. Why can't I select my own components to go in a laptop?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
But the difference is that a PC user doesn't have to be forced into buying more power than they need.
Now while the higher end Mac Laptop will make you the most popular piece in the bathhouse, a majority of users don't need the power of the latest and greatest to browse teh intarweb or watch DVDs.
So yes... PCs are cheaper than Macs, they offer more choice, your upgrade options aren't limitted to buying a new computer, and your problems don't always have to be solved by spending a few more hundy.
The horse is dead. You can stop beating it now. Title should be "Puncturing the 'PC Laptops Are Cheaper Than Mac Laptops' Myth", at any rate.
Perhaps the switch to a Intel based processor made that happen. Hardware aside is there much difference between what goes into a comparable dell and an equivalent Mac. But as I understand it, if you want to replace parts or do any upgrade are you're still at the mercy of Apples famous marked up prices. Perhaps the new Apple strategy akin to gaming console & printers lose or break even on the original purchase but make the money on parts and Applecare warranties?
Although the new Santa Rosa chipsets make the MacBook less competitive than it was before, overall it is still a good value. For a while there was almost no competition if you wanted a 5 lb. Core 2 Duo laptop w/ 4MB of L2.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Apple focuses on making only a few models, so they actually get better pricing than their overall sales volume would normally yield. The problem is, large enterprise customers can get quality workstations with 17" LCDs for like $600, smaller ones cost a little more.
When you compare apples to apples (to use a bad pun), their pricing is excellent. The problem is that Apple is very selective about what market segments that they appeal to.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
They compared to Dell and Sony -- both notoriously overpriced. Everyone knows Dell jacks up their prices and releases thousands of coupons to grab a larger range of profits. It's another piece of "news" designed to give /unbiased/ proof of the author's opinion by skewing statistics and using generally unqualified comparisons.
Your two examples are the most expensive brands available. Don't give me the apples to apples horsecrap either. Go hug a tree.
While Dell or Sony may or may not be cheaper than a Mac, building your own computer is cheaper... and its at least an option with PCs.
I managed to get a new Gateway laptop a couple months ago for $1200. Intel Core2 Duo 2.0Ghz, 2GB RAM, 80GB HDD, and MILLIONS of colors.
The Macbook pro which seemed comparable was $2500 if I remember correctly. So I beg to differ!
Not to mention I actually get millions of colors...
Did I mention that already?
if I were able to see further, it was because I stood on the shoulders of Giants -Newton
Apple is excellent hardware, no drivers needed. Try updating Sony drivers sometime. Ridiculous.
You GET what you PAY for. Count your hours wasted tweaking drivers and multiply by your hourly rate.
Apple spends the time making ALL the backend stuff work, so the (noob?) user doesn't have to.
Obviously it costs more to reinvent the wheel, and do a better job than the squares out there.
I'll spend an extra $350 to avoid buying a ticking VAIO time bomb,
(and I don't need DELL to hold my hand on the (frequent) reinstalls.)
Please. Anybody who buys Sony or Dell is paying for crap product + overhead.
a PC is still cheaper than a Mac if 'good enough' is good enough.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Well thanks for busting the 'myth?', I guess, but it actually fact in case you were wondering.
:)
This comparison is bogus, using "name brand" hardware and using Dell as a comparison. This may work for the plebs that buy Dells or whatever, but here on slashdot... sorry no dice. Laptops are one thing since you cannot build them yourself, but even so, they do not come in cheaper. Anyone who has priced comparable laptops knows this to be true... the writing is on the wall, or at least on the bottom line.
The difference becomes glaring in the desktop sector though. Especially to us here, where we build our own machines. Everyone knows that you can get the specs for a G5, go to Tigerdirect, Newegg, wherever and price things out piece by piece and come in well under what that Mac would cost.
These are not guesses either, I am sure many here have done the same already as I have. I have bought a laptop and built a PC this year and managed to get great machines for at least a savings of $500. On my desktop, I managed to come in around $750 less than the G5. That was for the whole shebang too, box, power supply, OS, everything.
I for one, am fed up with this huge wave of Mac fanboyism based on false beliefs. They make great machines, but they are over priced, to most people, for what they offer. The problem only compounds in the tech community because actually have insight in what things should and actually do cost.
Goodbye karma
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
I think not just their lack of a low end, but a general lack of options. Don't get me wrong, I'm a mac user and I like them, but Dell (for example) has something like 10 very different laptop models, while Apple basically has three models with limited configuration options. Try to go in the Apple store and buy a laptop without a built-in camera. With Dell, you can choose to have XP installed, one of the 20 different versions of Vista, or even (recently added) Ubuntu. With Apple, you get OSX.
Many of their choices are very good, but if you have specific needs, then your needs might not be met by Apple's lineup.
Okay, so if you are looking for something that happens to be exactly what Apple thinks you want, and if you restrict the universe to major name brands, Apple isn't more expensive. True, but this isn't a "no longer", and doesn't point to any real "myth". The whole "Apple is more expensive" thing has always been based on the fact that people don't always want exactly the combination of features Apple has decided they need, and, even more importantly, because in the PC world, the universe of options is not restricted to the biggest names.
And, also, has always been more about desktops, rather than notebooks: in notebooks, the options even in the PC world have always been narrower than for desktops, and so the difference has never been as pronounced there.
People forget about the accessories. If I have scanners/printers/software that only works with a PC and not on OS X then I will need to buy the replacements. This adds to the cost. I have a scanner and laser printer that do not work under OS X (yes I have done my research) so that alone would make switching a lot more (and no they aren't cheap scanners or printers).
But yet in any PC vs Mac price wars no one mentions this.
If you compare Dell's standard prices, then you may well find Apple hardware at a similar price.
However, you're ignoring the fact the Dell regularly have fantastic offers. When I bought my current laptop, the Dell standard price was £500. However, I paid £350 thanks to their special offers.
I'd like a Macbook (assuming I can install XP on one) as they're pretty machines which appear to have a better resale value than Dells..
I find this vain attempt to distinguish the modern "Macs" from the loathed "Peecees" as amusing.
Macs are PC's, in every sense of the word. Get over it. The difference is EFI, a logo and price markup. How very distinctive.
If you're going to be using the thing for 3 or 4 years, get the machine that you enjoy using and which meets your computing needs the best.
Don't fret about an extra $500 either way. If money is that tight maybe look at a used laptop with Ubuntu, then you'll save money not just on the initial purchase but on the cost of software too.
I have no idea if this was taken into account, and I don't have time to check. But Dell (almost?) always has something like 25-40% off coupons for machines over X dollars. Anyone buying a computer can find these with a simple google search.
I was a little surprised to find that Dell's Inspiron line doesn't currently offer processing power equaling that of the MacBook Pro. To get a 2.33-GHz Core 2 Duo processor (a 2.4-GHz version isn't available yet), you have to move up to Dell's more expensive XPS M1710 with Vista Home Premium
Once I did that, though, and tricked out the M1710 with only those extras it had to have to compete with the MacBook Pro, I was surprised to see the Dell come in at a whopping $3,459, some $650 more than the Apple product..
If I simply remove that requirement and get an Inspiron E1705 with an "Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo T7400 (2.16GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, 667 MHz FSB)", Dell provides a system with comparable features for about $1800. Anyone else get the different results?
Personally, I would opt for an even cheaper system. I can save even more by going with the cheaper components (The ATI chipset is $140 cheaper then the Nvidia chipset). 17" is almost too big for a portable computer, so I opted for a 15" screen instead.
If I had $2,799.00 to blow on a notebook then maybe the MacBook Pro 17" would provide a good value. However I need to spend my money on other things, and my cheaper $1000 Dell E1505 works good enough for me.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
This whole thing is ridiculous and has been for a long time. Yes there is a slight premium for a Mac, but it's almost insignificant when comparing overall price of nearly any Mac system to a PC these days. Here's what I wrote the other day in the thread about OS X.
"I priced a Dell XPS M1210 with identical components of your MacBook (2.16 core duo, 1GB RAM, 8x DVD burner, 160 SATA) except for video and Windows Vista Basic Edition, at $1889. The video on the Dell was a 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce(TM) Go 7400 TurboCache which shares system memory, I believe, vice the 64MB video listed for the Macbook. At $1889, the Dell is significantly more expensive than the $1499 quoted for the macbook. To be fair, I also priced a Dell Inspiron E1405 with a 2.0 GHz core duo (not available with the 2.16) with the same graphics as the MacBook for $1164. If you say the price jump to the 2.16 is equal to the price difference between the 2.0 and the 1.66 (same bus speed), the price becomes $1289. So the "Apple premium" is $210. I'd be willing to bet I can find several other PC manufacturers (not even counting Sony) that come close to the same price range. Granted Dell may or may not be the most affordable system out there, but being one of the bigger names in the consumer market right now, I think it's a fair comparison of systems. I think the argument that Apple hardware is extremely expensive is outdated at best. Comparing apples to oranges, perhaps, but when comparing systems with comparable hardware, Apple doesn't look particularly expensive."
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
"The recently converted Scot Finnie went notebook shopping."
The first line of the summary.
I just put together a new PC with Case with an AMDX2 for well under $350. Case and 500 Watt PS were free (rebate came back a while ago). Mobo and Chip ~100 (integrated 6100 NVidia). 2GB (2x1GB) 800 mhz RAM for 45 (after rebate). AMDX2 3600s aren't top of the line, but you don't have to pay much more for a C2duo these days. $125 for a 500GB 7200 Perpendicular Recording Drive from Seagate (not the cheapest around, especially if you don't mind IDE instead. (Granted no new monitor.) Did splurge on an overkill heatsink ($35 after rebate) as I'm tired of the old PC heating the upstairs office in summer. Hell, if you are patient enough it is probably possible to build a completely free after rebate PC. It probably won't break any speed records or run Vista, but that's a good thing. As far as laptops and full systems go, if anyone shops at Dell.com without coupon codes they deserve the crap they're getting. Oh and people buying 17"+ laptops/DESK replacements for $2,799 or $3,459 I mean are well... hmmm... the best customers! I have land in Florida! (Why the hell are 17in laptops so friggin popular? Do you any of you who have one actually take a train to work and use them regularly during the commute? I thought so. Buy a desktop instead.)
Dell Precision M90
My System Details
Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo Processor T7600 (2.33GHz/667MHz/4MB)
Genuine Windows® XP Professional, SP2 with Media
NVIDIA® Quadro FX 1500M, 256MB (dedicated), OpenGL
17 inch Wide Screen WUXGA LCD Panel
2 GB, DDR2-667 SDRAM, 2 DIMM
160GB Hard Drive (5400RPM)
8XDVD+/-RW w/Sonic Digital Media(TM)/CyberLink PowerDVD(TM)
Intel® 3945 802.11a/g Dual-band Mini-Card
Dell Wireless® 350 Bluetooth Module
All for $2793
That includes the 1920x1200 screen and a 3 year warranty as compared to a 1 year warranty.
I bought my first Mac laptop four years ago (1st gen iBook G4) having had a long line of Intel and AMD based laptops from the likes of Toshiba, Samsung, Compaq and so on. I bought the iBook out of frustration. Partly the problem was that I wanted to run Linux on the machines and this meant that the cheapest laptops simply couldn't run Linux reliably because of lack of graphics, sound and network drivers for them. To achieve a decent level of Linux compatibility I had to go with mid range or higher machines. The problem was that even when spending £1500 or more, the machines would never last more than a year of use because I was using them as my primary computer. I bought the iBook for £999 figuring that it was cheaper and if it only lasted a year like the previous machines then I was still ahead of the game plus I would have supported hardware under a full UNIX platform. That machine is now four years old and still going strong after the same treatment that all my previous machines received and as a result I have bought two more Macs (a mini with ACD and a 15" MBP).
If you simply don't care about the quality of your machine then by all means go with the lowest priced available, but if you want a machine that will last and be reliable then buy a Mac.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
It's because Macs now have Intel chipsets. Duh!
Apple's model appears to be pitch new models slightly cheaper than their rivals and then to coast until they're significantly more expensive and then repeat. Therefore if you're in the market for a laptop when a new Mac appears you might get a good value laptop otherwise no way. Within months of the first Intel Macbooks appearing you could already get comparable PC laptops for several hundred dollars less.
I'm sure that Apple could go after the low end market but It's my belief that Apple intentionally avoids doing that for a number of reasons.
1. Margins at the lowest end of the market are thin if not razor thin. Certainly profit per unit isn't great, so each of these sold would mean a minimal profit, perhaps not even enough over the long term to justify any R&D, marketing and support.
2. Such a model would surely detract from sales of Apple's mid-range notebooks, as there would be a significant proportion of buyers who opted for the cheapest possible portable MacOS solution that they could lay there hands on. So, a low end model would, to some extent, cost Apple revenue, as it cannibalised sales from other, more profitable Apple notebooks.
3. Cheaper products sometimes (but not always) require corners to be cut. Apple's image (to the public) is one of quality as well as simplicity, and a low end model would perhaps change that image in a way that wouldn't suit it. Certainly Apple would not want people's first experience of the brand to be a negative one, and a low end notebook computer (from any manufacturer) is certainly the sort of product that is likely to disappoint rather than meet or exceed the average user's expectations.
The bottom line is that Apple just doesn't need to go chasing that segment of the market when doing so has so many cons and so few pros.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Alright guys, so to start off, I'm a big Mac fan at heart - I started off on the Mac more than 12 years ago, and was a hardcore mac user (the type that would take an argument with anyone about Macs being better).
And I still think that Apple computers are some of the highest quality computers you can get, and believe me, if mid-range Macs were cheaper, I'd have one.
But this is simply a ridiculous claim with nothing to back it. For starters, Dell constantly has sales, whereas Macs are always the same price, no drops, no competitive pricing, nothing. A macbook is a macbook is $1,099 is $1,099. No matter where you go.
Just going to both the Apple store and the Dell store right now, this is what we have:
MacBook: $1374 (13.3", 2.0 GHz, 1GB, 160GB HD, generic crappy graphics card, 1 year warranty, standard ports + wireless)
Dell E1505: $1374 (15", 2.0 GHz, 1GB, 160GB HD, ATI X1400, 2 year warranty, standard ports + wireless)
And mind you this is not even with a Dell sale, this is just your standard off-the-shelf prices. Not only is the Dell $100 cheaper, it comes with a 2 year warranty instead of 1 year, a graphics card you can actually play games with, and a display that's 2" bigger.
Sorry to burt your bubble, but PC's/Dell has apple beat on the low-end. High end I'll even give you, but again, if you get Dell/AlienWare on a sale, I bet you the PC would still be cheaper than a Mac (Apple doesn't have sales).
People generally don't consider longevity when purchasing a machine. My main computer is a 1.4GHz G4 and I also have a 1.33GHz iBook. I don't forsee myself replacing these for a loong time. (The G4 was an 800MHz, but put a new CPU in it about 3 years ago.)
And if I need to upgrade my G4 I have a long way to go. I can slap in a new CPU (all the way up to dual 1.8 G4) or more RAM, or a new AGP video card.
So yeah, I definitely got my money's worth out of these computers, so I don't feel as sheepish as I would if I had to replace them only 4-5 years after I had purchased them.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
There's not a significant price difference now because Macs are quite literally PCs with OS X installed on them. This article might have had a point if this were 2004.
For all practical purposes you can get a Dell laptop three times as cheap as a Mac (my personal experience $800 vs $2500). More so, you can get a BETTER machine from Dell where it matters. For example, Dell laptops have better LCDs and a lot higher resolution in 15" range. I do not even mention PCMCIA and dock port.
You will probably not get a top of the line video card or CPU from Dell, but who cares? CPU does not matter, the screen resolution does. As for videocard, it's not like you are going to be playing a lot of games on a laptop anyway.
And purchasing the hardware is just the beginning of your pain. Within a week you'll discover that you need to pay for even basic tools. And then some tools won'be available anyway.
How do I know? I bought a MacBook Pro and sold it 2 months later (a year ago). That was the worst $700 ever wasted in my life.
Geez, stop this mac fanboy crap already!
You're certainly right that Dell has more options than Apple... the only problem is that when I got to Dell's site I feel like I need a little pop-up Xzibit to "Pimp My Computer". Dell has more options but it's easier to order a computer from Apple due to the lack of options. Most people say "Should I get a MacBook or a MacBook Pro?" instead of "Should I get an Inspiron N24312, Latitude A*953, blah blah blah?" I find it much easier to recommend Apple computers to people because of this. Granted most of them go buy a Dell anyway but at least then I can avoid playing tech support. ;)
Most of the options once you pick out the model of Dell laptop that you want are similar to Apple. Dell just has a plethora of other options like extra software, printers, warranties, random accessories, etc.
So in short, you're right but I see it as a good thing.
This is not meant as flamebait...
Lets continue the recent slashdot apple lovefest.
Really, we just had to suffer through slashdot announcing the old news of apple getting a new chipset, like how is that worthy of news?
Now we get a slanted piece about purchase price that holds true in a couple of instances, but will have many holes poked in it.
As a user of Apple, Linux and MS I must state that none are perfect but there seems to be a spike in "ferver" in the apple camp, more than even MS or Linux. (it is usually MS or Linux that gets accused of having zelots) BUT is that true? I often wonder if the exclusive apple users really feel more threatened, or if it is just that the apple world is so small that somehow a new chipset(etc) is worthy of slasdot, and thus it only APPEARS that the adherents are harder core.
(sorry BSD people, I do not use it, but it is not personal)
Watch my karma burn
From the full article: "Get involved with the cost analysis I'm interested in what both Windows and Mac people have to say about comparing the value of these two types of computers. There are a lot of ways to look at this. I just want to ask the people who heavily disagree with me to do these two things: 1) Read what I've written carefully, and 2) do your own homework. Don't make assumptions about pricing without doing a tech spec comparison of directly comparable Apple and PC equipment." That's really all there is to it, crunch the numbers, and in doing so, avoid making mistakes. Of course there's more than just the raw specs (and i think the author places a little too much emphasis on .1 or .2 GHz difference in CPU speed), but even a simple spec/cost comparison goes along way towards an informed decision
Sure, you should purchase based on your needs. The problem with that statement, is that this article isn't about what Apple provides that Dell et al don't, it's about the FUD that Apple computers (comparably equipped) are more expensive than PCs. That's simply not true, at least in the laptop market.
Yes Dell has a lot of options. Having 30 options with 28 of them being for a market I'm not in is no better than having 3 options with 1 of them being for a market I'm not in. I'd also wager that because Dell has so many options, people simply pick the one that's listed as a "special" more often than not, because they simply don't give a damn what is inside. It's no different for Apple users, for the most part. They just want it to work with the applications they want to run. Giving them an extra 20 choices won't really matter.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
While Apple laptops are very competitive across the board, they certainly aren't in the deskop arena. We have the low-end Mac mini, then the mid-high iMac (price-wise), and then the way up there Mac Pro. There's nothing that would compete in a corporate or education range with, say, a Dell GX745. A complete desktop system is about 1200 (20" screen). All Apple has in this area is the iMac, which for this size of screen comes in close to $2000 or $2200. There's just a huge hole in the Apple lineup. If I want just a tower case, I have no choices at all between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. For a lot of people that would want to get into video production, for example, there's nothing to choose from on Apple. My brother, for example, wants at least a Core 2 Duo, 2-4 hard drive bays, and room for 4-8 GB of ram. Dell can provide this for under $1000. Apple's only choice is the Mac Pro which will start him at $1500, going on up into the stratosphere from there.
I don't know about you, but I tot up the stuff that's important to me, and look for something that gives me those features.
So I don't care if adding a video camera to a Wintel laptop would put it over the mark or not, because I wouldn't buy a laptop with a built in video camera. That feature has no value to me.
I don't care if making a PC as small as a Mac mini costs $100 more, that has no value to me.
But I do care if the GPU in my computer does native 3d OpenGL or not.
So when I look at laptops, the cheapest acceptable model from Apple is the 15" Macbook Pro. An acceptable model from Lenovo is around $1250. If I'm going to put up with the GMA950 I can get a decent laptop for $750.
Tricking out a Thinkpad T-series (what I'd be using if I could get OS X for it) with everything I actually care about in my Macbook Pro would cost me $1800.
On the other hand, there's no amount of money I can pay to Apple to get me a Macbook with a Thinkpad keyboard.
See... the ONLY way you get Apple's products looking as cheap as Wintel version is by demanding everything that the Mac provides be included in the PC, but completely discounting the value of anything that comes with the PC that the Mac doesn't include.
* Contoured keyboard.
* Two trackpad buttons.
* Ultrabay.
* Trackpoint mouse.
* Docking port.
The only way I can see to get a Macbook that's comparable to a Thinkpad would be to get someone to build you a custom case, a-la the Modbook. What? That's ridiculous? Then why isn't demanding a built-in camera ridiculous? You can't have it both ways... either handicap BOTH sides equally, or don't treat EITHER as a requirements spec.
PCs are the same price as Macs. Why?
Macs are PCs. Apple nearly invented PCs. Why do people still call it this way?
The new MacBook Pro features the new Santa Rosa chipset and supports all those nice extra features on the motherboard, plus has a nice new 8600 graphics card. It would be truer to say that Mac customers got features before dell customers (which is not to be sniffed at, sure).
In order to buy a Dell with the same performance, with older hardware, yes its going to cost more. You have to go to their performance range, instead of their regular range, because regular new hardware performs about as well as extreme performance old hardware. For example you need a 7900 to come close to the 8600.
Dell typically takes a little longer to rev up to new hardware, and thats fine by me. Comparing the "last gen" products, our top of the line MacBook Pro just didn't have the grapical oomph to run our applications, where-as my $2000 Dell Inspiron had a 7800 in it. I expect that in a few months we'll see cheaper dells with better graphics, i.e. 8800's, and faster CPUs.
So if you are impatient, go and get the MacBook Pro. In a few months the Dells will be cheaper and faster. Of course, they wont be sexier. :-)
My Dell is a 1920x1080, 2Ghz C2D, 2Gb 667Mhz Ram, 7800GS. Cost under $2000. Weight 8lbs. I don't care.
My bosses MacBookPro is 1920x1080, 2Ghz C1D, 2Gb Ram, ATI1300. Cost over $2000. Weighs 4lb? Much slower than my Dell in all respects. He doesn't care. Looks much nicer.
Apply Spec ($2799 US)
Glossy 17-in. screen with 1,680-by-1,050-pixel resolution (optional 1,920-by-1,200 resolution for $100 more)
2.4-GHz Core 2 Duo processor
2GB of RAM (upgradeable to 4GB)
256MB Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT video
160GB 5,400-rpm SATA hard drive
8x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Gigabit Ethernet port
54Mbit/sec. a/b/g/Draft n Wi-Fi
Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, ExpressCard/34 card slot
Three USB ports
One FireWire 800 port
One FireWire 400 port
DVI port
Built-in iSight video camera
One-year warranty (upgradeable to three years)
Dell Inspiron 9400 ($2588 CANADIAN)
PROCESSOR Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo processor T7400 (4MB Cache/2.16GHz/667MHz FSB)
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows® XP Professional
LCD DISPLAY 17 inch UltraSharp(TM) Wide Screen UXGA Display with TrueLife(TM)
MEMORY 2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
HARD DRIVE 160GB SATA Hard Drive
OPTICAL DRIVE 8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
GRAPHICS CARD 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce(TM) Go 7900 GS
BATTERY OPTIONS 80 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
Has DVI and VGA Ports
6 USB Ports
Gig Etherner and 11g Wireless (for about $50 more you can get the N card)
Has Firewire but no bluetooth so you would have to buy an adapter.. But that is probably 300 - 400 cheaper than the Mac..
Looks like the Author was almost trying not to find a comparable Dell Laptop
Looks like you can get a similarly configured HP dv9500t for ~$1700. Uses 2.2Ghz instead of the 2.4Ghz CPUs. Pretty sure that an extra 200 mhz on the CPUs isn't worth $1,000. Plus HP gives you the options of upgrading to a better screen, bigger and faster hard drives, HD-DVD player, etc.. You can also downgrade to the 8600GT to a 8400GT and save $150 for those non-gamers out there.
Now as to whether it's worth $1,000 to have an Apple instead of an HP...
I recently went notebook shopping with my wife for an capable business machine (no games, no video editing, you get the idea). We made a dell configuration for her is a Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, etc., for $650.
Apple does not sell any MacBook at all for under $1100.
I'm sorry, but macs are still more expensive, and as far as I'm concerned, at all price points. The reason the Dell came out so expensive for the reviewer, is that he insisted that the Dell have the exact same specs as the mac. That forced him into a way higher price point on the Dell than he probably needed.
Reminder, this for me, not for you, but I could dispense with a lot of those requirements if it meant a much cheaper machine. For instance, I don't need the integrated video camera, several of those ports, and the screen is upgraded way beyond what I need. If I were to build my "dream" notebook, it would cost way less than $2800, like the mac did.
All that being said, I think Macs are great, and OS X is great. I'd buy a mac if I could afford it.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
... OS X isn't keyboard-friendly. Even with the option turned on to extend the tabbing to all UI components, it still doesn't extend it to all of them. I primarily use the keyboard when I'm working, as being a developer, I have my hands on the keyboard to do my work. Switching one to the mouse to select a drop-down makes me less productive. Also alt-tabbing is fantastically swift on Windows, allowing me to switch between documents and not just applications. There are apps on OS X that can make that more like Windows, but even so they're just not as quick. I've used OS X for months and months (being a contractor in London I happened across lots of offices who loved using macs, and working on their hardware I had to use one), and every time I use it, I notice how much it's slowing me down. I'm not a fan-boy of any camp. I use what I can to get the job done in as quick a time as possible. As it currently stands (I'm not discounting Apple's ability to change, believe me), OS X isn't at the top of the list for keyboard-preferring users like myself.
Strictly speaking, Apples are PCs. In the past, there were significant architectural differences between the Intel/AMD and PowerPC platforms and it was fair to separate them into different camps. These days, the differences between a MacOS and Windows notebook boil down to some industrial design and the operating system. Consequently, it stands to reason that prices should be similar. Because of Apple's proprietary OS, they have the luxury of avoiding the extreme low-end market -- it's not worth trying to sell an Apple notebook for $600, because of squeezed margins.
Mac laptops might not be more expensive than PC laptops, but Mac laptops don't have available docks (only after market which are really just giant USB dongles). You're also stuck with an atrocious glidepad. If Apple offered docks and a Trackpoint, I'd consider it, but not using a toy mass consumer laptop, even if it has nice specs. Specs don't in and of themselves result in a good product.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
MacBook Pro 15" 2.2GHz C2D in USA: US$1999
MacBook Pro 15" 2.16GHz C2D in Brazil: US$6055
You can pretty much buy 2 high end PC laptops for the price of one MacBook Pro. I don't get it, it's not just the damn taxes (they're pretty high), but even after considering the retail price plus taxes, it's still about half the price tag of official Apple Brasil stores. Go figure...
The "low-end" option (1.5GHz Core Solo) is also pretty expensive, US$1322, that's almost 7 times the minimum wage here. The product gap is also huge, if I'm going to do some serious gaming, can I just put an GeForce 8800GTX on an iMac? Or do I need to spend over US$5000 on a Mac Pro?
How about the rest of the world?
I always buy the lowest end laptops available. With proper treatment, they last a good long time, and they're powerful enough for me.
My last one cost about $450 after rebates. I don't see any mac laptop in that price range.
Also, show me the mac laptop that has two mouse buttons so you can run Linux and BSD properly. I'm just not that into bouncing icons.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
To be fair to Dell, they do have coupons and sales that sometimes take up to 50% off their regular prices. This is unheard of in the Apple land, but I still prefer Apple...
If you can configure a PC that is cheaper than a Mac, then the PC is cheaper. The Mac may offer some set of features in a particular configuration that are not nearly as cheap in most PCs but that does not change the fact that, on the whole, especially near the fringes (entry level PCs/Macs vs high end PCs/Macs), PC hardware comes out much cheaper.
Apple has made pretty bad hardware for a few years. Mod me as flamebait but many corporate customers will no longer buy 1st generation apple products because they always have bugs that are fixed in the 2nd or third generation.
Examples include the overheating macbook pro with sony batteries that can explode, cracked square cubed g4s, screens on the older ibooks that fail regularly with faulty connectors, ipods that develop statically sound from bad soldier. The macbook pros also have issues with boards being replaced. Sometimes up to a 4 or 5 times from 2nd generation units.
Apple made the best hardware in the 80's with the exception with the ibook 150c but those days are over.
Apple lost credibility when they moved to China and made cheap plastic but still charged the same price to satisfy shareholders.
But I do agree with the VAIO. My wife has one and it freezes and overheats alot with a bad nvidia graphics card. THe warranty is avoided because I upgraded it to 1 gig and now they wont touch it even though the problem has nothing to do with the graphics. Ugh
http://saveie6.com/
Seeing as I just priced out midrange laptops for a buddy of mine like 3 months ago, and I myself just built a PC 3 weeks ago, I would have to say that the idea that PC's are the same price or more than Mac's is incorrect.
My buddy wanted to spend around 1000$, no more than 1200$ on a laptop. I am not a big laptop fan myself, but Dell(online), HP(online), Apple(online), and several name brands at local computer stores were compared. I liked the Dell but it was about 1400$ for what features I suggested to him. The Apple was 300$ BEYOND that. The HP was about 1200$ so he went with that solution. The brand name computers being sold by a local computer store were about the same as the Apple. So you can take what conclusions you like from that.
As to my PC. I built it from the components I wanted, bought at a store online and it cost me 1700$. To get the same PC from Dell probably would have cost me 2700$. I have no idea how much an Apple equivalent would be, but I can tell you right now it would be a hell of a lot more than 1700$. The fact that I can pick and choose what components I want, and that I have a choice of manufactures, and various places to buy said products is the strength of the PC. You can choose to buy someplace else at a cheaper price, you can choose a better component if you wish... etc... So again you can take what conclusions you like from that as well.
Here is my over all conclusion. Apple/Mac users are dumb. Some are dumb, like stupid, others dumb like ignorant. The stupid ones need something simple to use, or can't handle simple tasks such as learning how to use things. Ignorant, simply don't want to bother, and don't care. In either case the view/opinions of said individuals can also be broken down into those categories. The weight of the article is also the same. Any time I see an article written by a Mac zealot they are either too stupid to realize that their comparisons are not valid, or ignorant of the fact and just don't care to look beyond whatever conclusions they had previously made before the review was ever written. To say that I am getting somewhat tired of this sort of crap is evident in the harshness of this post. This was probably just a Troll post anyway.
Don't get me wrong I am far from a PC fanboy. Just get the damn facts straight. Macs are good. They are also less flexible, and more expensive than a PC. Apple tried the TCO bullshit argument, just the same as window's tried the TCO against linux. The idea that you would pay more in tech support, upgrades, etc... all BS. One of the problems is that most PC owners take whatever their masters say with a grain of salt, and until a thing is proven independently not to buy in. I have see too many times some apple punk will say, "My apple is faster and better than your PC, because Apple told me so, here is a graph and everything!". See my comment about stupid above.
A key example of this are the "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" commercials. Don't get me wrong I love them and think they are well done and funny. However they are only really truthful if A) you are stupid and b)you take them without context. One of the stupid comments in the post (no doubt gleaned from the truthiness commercial) is that Macs are somehow more secure than PCs. How can they even say that? Macs have what, 5% market share??!!? So they are more secure because no one will bother to write evil code as you will only hit a few machines. Again see my comment about stupid people. Now I am not saying that PC's are the most secure systems in the world, I have had my system hosed (but because I was using pirated unpatched software). In all these cases APPLE is talking about WINDOWS PC's of course. How about a Linux PC? I challenge Apple to prove that one. Anyway all I am saying is if the roles were reversed RIGHT NOW and Apple had 95% and Windows 5% of the market share after several months I am pretty sure every Apple would explode or something (yes I am being sarcastic).
Anyway I have ranted long enough on this stupid subject that seems to never
I didn't RTFA, but what about software, support/service and upgradeability? Surely this should also be factored in.
The difference becomes glaring in the desktop sector though. Especially to us here, where we build our own machines. Everyone knows that you can get the specs for a G5, go to Tigerdirect, Newegg, wherever and price things out piece by piece and come in well under what that Mac would cost.
...Of course, that savings seems less significant now that we're sacked with a workstation plagued by maddeningly intermittant hardware conflicts and maddeningly predictable software/OS glitches.
Yeah, indeed -- everyone knows this. That's why our handy IT department went out and custom built a new Windows workstation for our video studio: to save $600.
The thing is a lemon, much like the reasonably expensive PC it was to replace.
I'm not a fanboy. I don't care what other people use. However, working in a mixed platform enviroment for the last year has shown me a few things: 1) Windows users hate their computers, and are regularly extremely frustrated; 2) A turn-key solution is worth the "premium" (I put that in quotations because I think, in the long run, the premium machine costs us less time and effort to maintain).
So, go ahead and build your own PC if you're a gamer or a developer -- but if you need a machine to perform heavy multimedia duties in a professional environment, you're just asking for a world of grief by trying to save that $500.
These stories are free but worth money.
Before the flames start - I have a 13" Macbook.
That said - servicing the damn things sucks. I routinely gut Dell laptops in the field to replace/upgrade hard drives, ram, WIFI cards - even CPUs. Good luck doing that with a Mac.
Other flaws: No docking stations for Macbook/Macbook Pros and no option for 7200 RPM hard drives. I can't understand why Apple wouldn't give that option to a high-end laptop consumer.
Apple has made tremendous strides in converting corporate IT guys like me. They still have a way to go to really take share from the big guys.
-ted
I don't believe that it's macs are over priced, it much rather they are priced right for there bracket. You can buy a mac for $2000 and get a really powerful machine, or you can buy a PC for $600 and get an average machine. if you want to plunk down $2000, you know your getting a high end machine.
A entry level Mac laptop runs for about $1250 retail from the computer store near where I live. For the same price I can buy a PC laptop with more than double the storage and a larger monitor and still have $300 or more left over to buy accessories. The performance is only marginally lower on the choice of most of the PC laptops that I noticed were available (in fact, I only saw one PC laptop in the store that had at least equivalent performance to the mac laptop based on the CPU type and speed, and although it was significantly more expensive than the entry-level mac laptop, it also came with significantly higher specs in other areas such as storage and built-in accessories). And to top it all off, the entry-level mac laptop doesn't even have a writeable DVD drive with it, where I was unable to spot a single new PC laptop that didn't come with one. Okay... so all the PC laptops they sell come with Vista, but hey, you can always put Linux or BSD on them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Exactly. If you start with the specs you need and price Macs and PCs, the PCs are cheaper. If you start with the specs that match a specific Mac and try to find a PC that meets or exceeds those specs, it's no surprise it will be more expensive.
Thanks for the laugh. You talk about excellent hardware, no drivers needed ... I think you might be mistaken. Besides, you then use your comparison point as the need to update your Sony drivers... the mind boggles.
Oh, and I think the victims of the many, repeated mass hardware failures of Apple hardware, from logic boards to buzzing displays to etc to etc, might disagree.
I think it's time to allow companies to produce OS/X based clones. I know they tried this in the past and ended up screwing the companies that took the bait, but Apple is a different company than it was years ago.
Today's Apple is largely a mystique/fashion-statement company. They build products that do essentially the same thing as other products, but have a reputation for doing it better. Enough so that their customers will endure a significant lack of software offerings to stay their customers.
It used to be that most of that mystique was based around their slick software. Now, while some still is, I'd say most of the mystique is based around their slick hardware. And, as this article points out, in the arenas where Apple chooses to compete, they are cost-competitive. The only thing holding them back is their unwillingness (or inability) to compete at the low end. So, which is better - cede the low end to Dell or to Microsoft/Dell? Assuming they can continue to be competitive at the high end, any minor loss there would be more than made up for by gains at the low end (which would consist of all-profit software sales). Plus expanding the OS/X pie would have to help their high end hardware business as well as their consumer electronics businesses.
And the resultant whittling down of the Microsoft monopoly would help the industry in general by raising the importance of portable, multi-platform software.
Nothing to lose... lots to gain, no?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Once you throw in a couple sticks of RAM and a jewel-encrusted chalice, the price advantage disappears?
:)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/09/14
>These are not the kind of people who carefully compare specs, hard drive size and RPMs, processor speed
>(mostly they still think Macs are slower too), graphics sets, the value of bundled software, service
>and repair reputation, etc. They just look at price on a few manufacturers that they've always dealt with.
This is logical and understandable. Look, I've got a BS in Computer Science, and I long ago lost track of the processor race. I used to be a hardware junkie. I could rattle off the 8086, 80286, 80386, 80386SX (no math coprocessor), 486, and 486SX, in all the MHz flavors. But then, rather than keep with a logical way of identifying processors, the manufacturers switched to trademark-able names. Pentium. Itanium. Opteron. Dual Core. Quad Core. Shit even MHz aren't meaningful much anymore. Shopping for a computer has become an exhaustive research project. Most people aren't up for it.
You know how I shop for computers nowadays? About every five years I go into Best Buy and look for the most expensive eMachine on the isle. I buy that one. I don't have the time or inclination to ferret out what makes one PC better than the next - I figure the price tag will tell me that.
But if I'm shopping for a bargain PC (like when I bought one for my Mom who only does email on a dial-up connection), then I go looking for the lowest-priced unit on the shelf, and work up in price until I reach the limit of what I'm willing to spend.
I bought a new notebook computer for my wife a few weekends ago. I was pleased to discover that inside Vista there is a "performance index" or somesuch where the software grades the performance of the computer on a 1-5 (I think) scale. I went down the isle of computers, running the index on each one, and made my decision that way.
The bottom line is, it is very difficult to examine and understand the performance characteristics of computer systems when you are in the market to buy one. I think this has been intensionally obfuscated by the manufacturers to make consumers have more of an ear towards marketing than technical details.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Reason is right. PCs (desktop) are far cheaper than Mac. As a general rule of thumb, Mac cost upwards of 33% of higher.
7 -6311-BA72-D69D8922B9D1115F-1457351
u stom?qprm=78313&family=MacPro
Dell, Sony, are just some manufacters; they by no means represent the PC market; herein lay the difference. Mac on the otherhand does represent the PC market.
Consider this general comparison
[pc $1578]
http://pc.ncix.com/ncixpc/ncixpc.cfm?uuid=8B99131
[Mac $2,499.00]
http://store.apple.com/AppleStore/WebObjects/BizC
While I'm at it, I also want to state the Mac commericals are garbage in how they portray the Mac as being better than the PC.
Apple is using intel cpus. One can even get a copy of OS X (unoffically and unsupported) to run on an intel PC.
I've heard rants from OSX86 users about how Apple has terrible hardware/driver support. As much trouble as I have taking them seriously, I think it points to something Apple might lose here.
(IANAL)
My wife's laptop was bought the Christmas before last:
$350 coupon auto applied to the first laptop over $2000, $750 auto applied the second and all subsequent ones.
Spec two $2k+ laptops, have $350 applied to the first, $750 to the second.
Decide you don't want the first, delete it and the associated $350 coupon goes away.
Now go to their Christmas promo site. Give them a junk email address, guess the stocking... fail to win the plasma TV listed as the star prize, collect the automatic "$100 off any system order" coupon that everyone gets for playing the first time and you really wanted anyway.
$2,000.78 - $750 - $100 = $1,150.78 for a $2,000 laptop.
Sure, it's a hassle. Sure, it's a pain in the ass to find the latest bargains. Sure, you occasionally have to wait a week or two for the next round of great deals on the specific thing you're interested in. Still, can you ever find a deal like that on Mac hardware, no matter how hard you're willing to work?
Dell does rip off its mass consumers. Those that have no idea about deals do, admittedly, pay about the same as a comparable Mac. But a 30 second google on "Dell deals" drops their prices 15-40%.
So, sure, for those who don't know, they're about the same price. For anyone who searches for deals, a $2,500 Mac laptop vs. a $2,500 Dell laptop with 15-40% savings are not the same price.
I didn't say it was a good thing. It's certainly not as though Apple does this on accident.
However, the post I was responding to was saying that Apple *seemed* more expensive because they lacked low-end models, and though that's true, I think that's only one example of a large phenomenon. The larger issue that causes Macs to seem more expensive is this limitation of choice.
In my last post, I gave the example of being unable to buy a laptop without a built-in camera. This is just an example, but if you had a Dell laptop without a built-in camera that was otherwise identical to a Macbook, and otherwise priced equally part-for-part, then the Apple would be more expensive by the price of the camera. So what might happen is that someone who doesn't care about the camera specs out "equivalent" systems, Apple with the camera and Dell without, and finds that the Apple laptop is slightly more expensive-- but the price would equal out if you bought a camera with the Dell.
And this happens often enough. Mac minis are can be more expensive than comparably powerful machines, but not really more expensive than comparable machines with a similar form factor. If you want a tiny machine, you'll pay a premium, but people who don't care about the form-factor will complain that they can buy a mini-tower for cheaper than the mini.
Similarly, a lot of people argue that you should factor in the value of Apple software (like iLife) when looking at price comparisons. There's something to the argument, but of course Apple doesn't allow you to purchase their computer at a discount without the software, and some people might not use the software, so it's hard to attach a value to the software. If I'm going to wipe the drive and install Linux either way, then perhaps the pre-installed software isn't valuable.
All I'm really saying is that because Apple doesn't have as many configuration options as Dell, the question of "which is a better value" depends a fair amount on what you need. If you're going to get a laptop with all the feature-set of a Macbook no matter what, a similarly configured Dell won't be much cheaper (if at all). However, if you want to be able to choose the precise features you want and skimp on money wherever you can, you might be able to cut enough out of the Dell laptop to make it cheaper. Even though it'll have less, it might not have less of any of the things you want.
15.4" Aspire notebook, WXGA, Centrino mobile 512Mb RAM, $399. You can't buy a Mac mini without kb, monitor, mouse for that much.
Macs are great, but they cost.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Gladly, before the 1 year guarantee was over, one of the 18 imacs that we have at the office broke down (so much for great quality!). I called Apple which didn`t have us as a customer in their system (what kind of database is that which forgets a corporate customer that bought 18 computers?). When one of the Dells breaks, they send a tech. which replaces quickly the damaged parts, usually in 1 business day.
Apple told us they were not going to send a tech. from the company, that we needed to contact ourselves a partner in our area and gave us a phone #. I called that company and wanted to have my customer number. I told him we bought the macs using the Apple website. Then he told me in order for them to fix the imac we have to have a customer number, wont give me a RMA, and suggested ME to BRING THE MACHINE TO THE SHOP to look at it.
I went back to Apple which finally gave us our customer number. Called the shop again and they told us you need "our" client number, not Apples, so no chance for an RMA...
This situation pissed me off. Corporate customers do not have time to deal with problems like this. I realized then, Apple is not prepared for business customers, it all looked like a small, home-based, local-shop operation. The entire day wasted learning this didn't make me very happy either.
To summarize: Broken Apple database, inattentive support from two companies, not fast solution to downtime, profit lost.
Now, when I get in a heated debate that approaches fisticuffs over the prices of personal computers, I have a reference which will assure me victory. I merely need only bait my opponent into saying, "but Apple computers are so much more expensive!" Then, I pull the trigger, and navigate to the article. I will strike Darth Vader down with a single stroke of logic from this Slashdot post and shall rescue the galaxy from this horrible, horrible misconception that plagues the minds of so many. Then a new empire shall be ushered in...
The last few times one of my co-workers asked me to find a "good deal" on a "nice Windows laptop" for them, it was more of a chore than I expected.
...
For example, visit one of your local retailers like Office Depot, OfficeMax, Best Buy, or Circuit City, and try to determine exactly which video chipset and how much video RAM a given notebook contains. Toshiba will sometimes offer a clue, only by the fact they've stuck a little square "ATI" sticker in the corner of the machine -- but the published "specs" on the store shelf won't even list it. Other times, I'll see things like "Intel 3D video!" - but no explanation that this usually means integrated video that shares system RAM with video RAM. The average user knows nothing about any of this....
And again, try to find out what speed of hard drive is included. They'll gladly tell you it has an 80GB or a 40GB drive or whatever, but not if they're short-changing you with some SLOW 4200RPM model....
The PC notebook makers seemed to conclude that hiding some of the facts is the best marketing tool... Brag about CPU speed, but bury it in fine print that it's a Celeron class CPU. Most of your model line hasn't been updated yet to use the new wireless N standards? Don't mention it at all then. Just announce they have "built-in wi-fi!". Even more savvy users won't always remember to check ALL of these items until after the sale
By contrast, when I order a new Apple notebook on their web site, each specific detail is listed, and can be customized in many cases. If the competition was sold identically, I think people would have a clearer sense of what they're getting for their dollar.
the computer upon which I work is an emachines w3118. I paid $300 for it (sans monitor, I had the monitor from my dad's old computer). It had an 80gb hard drive and a CDRW/DVD-ROM drive with an empty 5.25" and 3.5" bay. I have since purchased a DVDRW DL drive and a 250gb hard drive. It also included two PCI slots (one had a modem, i replaced it with a wireless adapter and put a firewire adapter in the other one), a PCIe x1 and x16 slot. I have yet to purchase a video card (I mostly play old games such as starcraft and baldur's gate, although the onboard nvidia 6100 runs hl2 pretty well.) I have upgraded it from 256mb ram to 1gb (and I could put as much as 2gb in). I'm sure I couldn't fit an 8800 Ultra (i'm all out of power connectors from the 350watt psu), and it's measly socket 754 doesn't allow for much in the way of cpu upgrade (amd sempron 3100 is what it currently has) but overall it's pretty nice.
If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence.
When I was in the market for a new notebook, I thought about getting a macbook but what I really wanted was a tablet. I do a lot of drawing, and being able to draw directly onto my screen-canvas was a godsend.
There was an on-line petition which aimed to convince Apple to make a Tablet Mac, but until they release one I had to go with a Toshiba Satelite. It ran about $1100, which wasn't too bad and I'm satisfied with it.
What are the chances a Tablet Mac would be in the same price range?
ASUS and Compal have their own laptop lines that are well-reviewed, have excellent build-quality, and are on the same feature-level as the MacBook Pros. The new ASUS G1/G2, A8, and F series as well as the Compal IFL90/IFT00 notebooks have Santa Rosa with nVidia DirectX 10 graphics--and can be configured for at least $500 less than the equivalent MBP. Take for example http://www.powernotebooks.com/: Their Compal-based "PowerPro J 10:15 ULTRA" has higher resolution than the mid-range MacBook Pro, 512 MB Video RAM, and a 3-year service warranty, but comes out $500 cheaper.
The usual response to this point is that Macs are so beautiful that it transcends all criticism from these irritating numbers.
That's a very good point. People place different values on features, price and convenience. That's how two perfectly reasonable people can reach vastly different conclusions about the same product whether it be a computer, a car, a house or whatever. I've found that my values have also changed over time. I used to be a poor college kid so I built my own machines. Then I got a job and suddenly my time was worth much more so I paid a little extra money and sacrificed a bit of flexibility for pre-built stuff. Now I value my mental health so I'll gladly fork over a few extra bucks and sacrifice non-important (to me) features to be able to run OS X.
And has been for some time.
I demonstrated months ago to the "Powers-That-Be" that a comparably equipped Dell, both notebook and desktop, configured to the same out of the box spex as an Apple cost $600 to $1500 more, since their issue was Windows/Most Bang for the Buck.
The last documents I kept were from a Macbook Pro vs. a Precision M65, and the Mac Pro Dual Core Xeon vs. a Precision 490.
Both were specced from their respective websites. In all cases, in order to get a Dell to feature parity, I had to add to the base configuration.
If anyone is interested I'll post the PDFs to a file sharing site.
BTW, as is oft times the case, facts did not win out over marketing and we are still buying Dells.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
My criteria for buying a laptop: 15" widescreen, relatively high resolution (somewhere near 1680x1050), 7200rpm hard drive, lots of ram (2gb), built in WiFi, DVD burner. The processor speed isn't quite so important because I don't do a lot of processor-intensive work, and I don't game on my laptop so the built-in graphics are fine. In a 15" widescreen Apple offers the following:
2.2ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1440x900 resolution, 2gb memory, DVD burner, 120gb 5400rpm hard drive: $1999
2.4ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1440x900 resolution, 2gb memory, DVD burner, 160gb 5400rpm hard drive: $2499
I can add a 7200rpm hard drive for $175 more and $150 more respectively.
If I opt to buy a Thinkpad I can get this:
2.0ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1680x1050, 2gb memory, DVD burner, 100gb 7200rpm hard drive: $1449
Yes, I know the processor isn't as good, but I guess that's the point, Apple offers you much less in the way of choice. The cheapest price I pay for the machine I want from Apple is $2174 (because I'd pay for the hard drive upgrade), I pay much less than that for the PC laptop because I can leave off some of the garbage I don't need.
I'm sure that there are situations--especially on the extreme high end--where Apple competes, but for me it's still the case that buying an Apple costs quite a bit more than buying a PC.
pw:secret
But cheaper to own and maintain? I think not.
I bought a toshiba dual core 1.75ghz system wi 1 gig of ram a dvd burner, 15 inch w/s 200gig hd and nvidia graphic chipset with vista premium (blah) wireless and BT for 599.00 if Apple doesn't sell low end then everyone is saying that apple sells systems with better than 2x the specs than this low end system? if the specs are ANYWHERE near this for even thier bottom line system then it should be priced around the same, not more... otherwise, they are priced higher, period.
First, no 386 systems had math coprocessors. The difference between a 386sx and a 386dx involved the sizes of the data and address buses coming off the chip. An sx processor had a 16-bit database and a 24-bit address bus. A 32-bit request would take two requests. It could only physically connect to 16 MB of RAM.
Mhz never mattered outside of the same processor from the same company. A 66 Mhz Pentium ran circles around 120 Mhz 486s. SPARCs, MIPS, and Alpha's generally ate the intel and compatibles for lunch at much lower clock rates.
The research on pricing might be right and it might be wrong, but I'm willing to spend the extra money to run Mac OS X (legally) on supported hardware. I prefer not to deal with Linux but I would take it over Windows anyday. Some people don't care or they have applications that require Windows. I can boot into or virtually run Windows, Linux, or MacOS X on my Macbook Pro if I need/want to--and I am happy with the choices I have.
I am also a Final Cut Studio user, so I'm not going to be able to use an El Cheapo PC laptop (I'll have to beef up the HD, the video card, memory, etc. *AND* buy Sony, Adobe, and/or Avid software). That makes buying a PC laptop more expensive--at least as much as a well-equipped Macbook Pro w/ FCS2.
If you're not that picky about the OS or have needs that push the limits, I suppose a $500 laptop from Acer makes you happy. Some people, however, wouldn't or couldn't use that bargain laptop if you gave it to them for free.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Just out of curiosity, what is it you don't like about servicing them? As it is I'm a server tech but did some work for my boss just last week brining his wifes macbook pro back to life. I'd never worked on a laptop previously and it struck me that it was nicely put together (which made accessing the inside easier then I'd expected.
So anyway, having admitted I am VERY unfamiliar with laptop maintenance, I'm genuinely curious.
Quack, quack.
Reread the post, it sounds like the guy would use OSX.
I'll believe it when I see it. As it is, I see that machine on edealinfo.com for $650, which is quite a jump from $430.
That insisting that things must be "comparably equipped" when one is coming with a bunch of crap you neither need nor want is misleading. It's always been this way with Macs. Mac towers generally aren't a bad deal overall if you insist on having a comparable PC. Two dual (or quad) core processors, 4 16x PCIe, lots of ECC RAM, and so on all really up the cost. That's all well and good, the problem comes that there isn't another option. What if, like most people, I'd be happy with a system with just a single processor and 16x slot? Well you just can't have that.
That's why insisting on a dead even "feature for feature" comparison isn't always useful. Apple is great at including a lot of features that many people aren't interested in. Thus they can often end up being expensive, even if on a feature per feature basis they are more in line. Their towers are expensive for me, that's just how it goes. I have no need at all for dual processors, yet they cannot be purchased without one. I don't care if the price is similar to a dual processor Dell, it isn't similar to what I'd want.
MacBook Pro 15.4"
Processor Intel Core 2 Duo T7400(2.16GHz)
Memory 1GB DDR2
Screen Size 15.4"
Resolution 1440 x 900
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 128 MB
Hard Drive 120GB 5400 RPM
Optical Drive DVD±R/RW 6x
LAN 10/100/1000Mbps
WLAN 802.11g Wireless LAN
Bluetooth Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Card slot 1 x ExpressCard/34 slot
USB Two 480-Mbps USB 2.0 ports
FireWire One FireWire 400 port at up to 400 Mbps
Video Port 1 x DVI (VGA output using included DVI to VGA adapter)
Audio Port Combined optical digital input/audio line in (minijack)
Webcam Built-in iSight Camera
Dimension 14.1" x 9.6" x 1.0"
Weight 5.6 lbs.
Currenly $1965 at Newegg
Asus A8JS
Processor Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 2.00G
Memory 1GB DDR2
Hard Drive 120GB 5400 RPM
Optical Drive DVD±R/RW 8x
NVIDIA GeForce Go 7700 512MB (about 25%-40% faster than the x1600, which is underclocked on the Mac)
Screen Size 14"
Resolution 1440 x 900
LAN 10/100/1000Mbps
WLAN 802.11a/b/g Wireless LAN
IRDA Yes
Card Slot 1 x Express Card
USB 5
IEEE 1394 1 (aka firewire)
Video Port 1 x VGA, 1 x DVI, 1 x S-Video TV-out
Audio Ports 1 x Headphone-out jack (SPDIF)
Card Reader MMC, SD, MS, MS PRO
Webcam 0.35 Mega-Pixel web-cam
Dimensions 13.19" x 9.65" x 1.37-1.46"
Weight 5.25 lbs.
Current $1380 at Newegg
Yes the screen is smaller but the resolution is the same and the laptop is an inch more compact in width as a result. Otherwise, the only major factors in the Mac's favor were the thinness, better construction, bluetooth (a $50 option I didn't need on the Asus), and an imperceptibly faster CPU. Everything else went in favor of the Asus. The price difference is currently about $600. At the time I was $700 ($1500 vs. $2200) or 46% higher for the Mac for a worse video card, no VGA out, no TV out, fewer USB slots, no memory card slot, and a bigger, heavier computer. There was just no comparison.
Comparing to Dell's web prices is misleading. Dell frequently gives out coupons that give $500-$1000 or 25%-40% discounts on their systems and laptops. Everyone knows Sony is way overpriced. That said, the high end MacBooks are premium computers and are priced in-line with other premium computers. If you're OK with paying extra for a premium computer, then that's fine. But if you do a little searching, you can find better notebooks for less, they just won't be well-known brands. If Apple doesn't fall egregiously behind (their new Santa Rosa MacBook will use an nVidia 8600 GT, which looks like it'll be a solid graphics card), my next notebook will probably be a MacBook so I can run OS/X.
So tired of cop-out arguments invoking “shiny”, “eye-candy”, or similar comments.
You do not have an argumentive leg to stand on if this is your reduction of any hardware. Or if you are speaking to certain features of Apple products, you are terribly lacking in objectivity. Apple is popular largely in part to useful polish, not because it amounts to little more than chrome.
Of course, you could always clarify what you define as “shiny crap”, and if I understood correctly, I will gladly reply with why the unique nuances are practical, not just pretty.
Why bother.
Generally the only reason that macs seem to have a longer lifespan is because Windows needed the latest and greatest operating system, which introduced a lot of bloat. Since the Vista ship date has slipped a lot I would expect a lot of computers that started running XP new are still pretty useful now. Actually I have a 700 mHz laptop that I switch back and fourth between linux and XP on a regular basis. My new laptop has a large enough HD to dual boot.
Maybe its just me but when I hear PC I always think box on your desk. If I just bought a new laptop I wouldn't tell my friend that "I just got a PC" I would say "I just got a laptop". Now I understand what is being said about laptops. If you want your laptop to do major things like gaming or graphics then go mac its worth the money and will end up costing less. But if your just using it for word processing then gee guess what a Dell laptop is cheaper than the mac...Simply because Mac doesn't make a "Cheap" laptop. Its like my wifes work. They just bought a ton of laptops but all they use thing for is a little data processing and accessing a web page for their software. They had the issue of 1k for a mac or 600 for the dell. Can you guess what they went with? It seems like Mac really needs to look into more business solutions. Some places like where I work like the full bells and whistles comp but a lot of small business don't want to spend 1k or more on a comp.
that $300 Windows Vista Home Basic or XP Home PC is going to be good enough for them to use, and affordable as well. That $579 Mac Mini is going to look like it costs twice as much. They won't know that the Mac Mini has a dual-core processor, or a better video adapter, or a more energy efficient design, or a better DVD drive. All they want is something that works and fits their budget. Unless they got a $579 budget, the Mac Mini would not fit it, but that $300 AMD Septron powered PC with Windows fits their budget.
Apple just does not really bother with the low end, and their lowest end Mac is priced to compete with those $499 to $599 PC systems with Intel branded dual core processors, ATI video adapters, etc. That is why the Mac is seen as being a better or same value as the PC with the same features and hardware specs as PC systems. There is no $300 Mac because Apple does not want to produce bottom of the barrel, low end, bare minimum Macs and use AMD Septron processors with a single core, Intel chipset video adapters with shared memory, generic DVD drives and memory, etc to cut costs so low that it fits that $300 budget. For a good reason that the cheaper technology is usually lower quality and has a higher defect rate, hence more expenses at the help desk and RMA levels.
If you really want a Mac and cannot afford it, just save up some money each month into a savings account until you get like $600 saved up and then buy a Mac Mini, or save $1400 for a higher end Mac, etc. In some cases Apple can offer credit for a loan and you can pay a small fee each month until the Mac is paid off. Yet the average person wants a computer ASAP at the lowest possible price, and don't care what features and hardware specs it has, as long as it works.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Don't forget software, which is, after all, the entire point of the hardware. If you are switching from a PC to a Mac, you need to replace all of your software. (Or run Windows on the Mac, which kind of defeats the purpose.) That's a very different proposition than choosing your first computer.
Apple could be giving away Macs for free, and I'd still end up spending about five grand replacing the software that I use regularly.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The $2,799.00 MacBook Pro has an antiquated 5400RPM drive as the default. Who is short-changing the customers again?
Oh, and their is that "little" feature about being able to run OSX, Linux, XP AND Vista...
I've yet to find a Dell at ANY price point which do do that.
One of which is the small form factor, as you mention. The other is that it's cool-running and has near-silent operation. I have a MacM Mini serving as my HTPC (inside a storage ottoman, no less) and it is definitely a good choice for that use. The only thing comparable on the Windows side is a VIA chipset (I have a mini-ITX based PC in my garage) which doesn't compare performace wise. If you're looking for a "desktop" computer for general use, and not taking anything but the hardware into consideration, I'd agree that the bottom-of-the-line Mac Minis don't compete well against comparibly priced Windows boxes.
Of course, Macs have an-ease-of-use that's quite simply, sublime. As an example, every time a family member has visited and wanted access to our wireless network with their PC, it's been a hassle to set up. On the other hand, I took my Mac to my parents or in-laws and hopped on their wireless networks with nary a hitch.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Is a low-end MacBook usable for development? $1,099.00 buys me a 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1GB memory, 80GB hard drive MacBook and Apple throws in the Xcode development tools for free.
Is that a sufficient system to develop code?
The author only compares high-end notebooks. On the other hand, who buys high-end notebooks? How much of a market share is that? Most people buy the cheapest, so for most people, PCs are STILL cheaper than Macs.
This article is absolute nonsense. I speced out a high end gaming notebook and the Apple notebook was over 1K more despite having a lower res screen and a much slower video card.
> I used to be a hardware junkie. I could rattle off the 8086, 80286, 80386, 80386SX (no math coprocessor),
> 486, and 486SX, in all the MHz flavors.
Nope, the 386SX was a 386 instruction set compatible processor with a 286 bus to allow easy reuse of existing motherboard designs. The 486SX was the one with the lobotomized mathco. Not nit picking ya, just using it as an example to confirm your proposition. If even us junkies have trouble telling the buzzwords and stats apart how the hell is joe average going to have a prayer? Answer: he doesn't. He does what you do and grab an emachines from Wallyworld or Best Buy... or more likely becomes one more dude with a Dell.
But one thing is certain, the trend is down. Unless we have another major round of software bloating the number of people who are happy with a minimal machine is growing. This means the magic place is >$1000 on a laptop and $500 for a desktop. Apple doesn't even try to compete in that space and I suspect Microsoft is going to have trouble with Vista if the bar lowers yet again. See the article on slashdot this week about Asus and their $200 laptop like device coming this summer to a store near you. That is the future, and adding $100 for the Microsoft tax at that price point ain't happening.
Try this experiment if you really want to see what could happen. Go to newegg.com (or any similar site) and see how much desktop you can get for $200. Any volume manufacturer could buy those same basic parts, apply some massive integration, cheap plastic case, etc and sell em on pallets to Walmart at a wholesale price low enough to allow Wallyworld to sell finished boxes for that same $200. To date that hasn't happened because of the question of what to load. Microsoft is too expensive to make the plan viable and they fear a bad reaction if they stick Linux on, probably[1] rightly. But the power of the market is powerful, so someone will eventually figure a way to tap it.
So in the end, both Apple and Microsoft are most likely to be defeated by an inability to readjust their pricing model quickly enough. And if Dell, etc. isn't careful they will go with em. Computers are about to become consumer electronics. That means high volume, low margin. Even Dell still gets amrgins most CE corps only dream of.
[1] Because most people don't even realize anything but Windows exists, especially the Walmart set. Thus when they can't load World of Warcrack, etc. many will try to return it and Walmart takes almost anything back.
Democrat delenda est
And I disagree with his premise. He dismisses the "in between" SKUs as "niches". From my point of view, the truth is exactly the opposite: the Mac SKUs themselves are the niches.
I think most people would agree with me.
His premise is that the mac SKUs are the baseline machines, but the whole cornucopia of customized machines at Dell is some type of niche market. I think you both would be well-served to look up the definition of the word "niche".
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that for all configurations except for the niche Mac models, you'd get a significantly better deal customizing a notebook at dell.com.
If we can, from this, draw the conclusion that "Everybody knows PCs are cheaper than Macs, right? Wrong!", then I am Cindy Lauper.
In fact, the only conclusion that we can draw from this guy's analysis is that Dell does not offer a direct feature-by-feature competitor to the MacBook Pro 17. Perhaps Lenovo, HP, Toshiba, Compaq, etc. offer one? I don't know or care enough to look, but what I do know is that with all of those options and all that competition out there, you are bound to get a better deal on a Windows notebook than a MacBook the overwhelming majority of the time.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
And this happens often enough. Mac minis are can be more expensive than comparably powerful machines, but not really more expensive than comparable machines with a similar form factor. If you want a tiny machine, you'll pay a premium, but people who don't care about the form-factor will complain that they can buy a mini-tower for cheaper than the mini.
Have you ever heard of mini-itx? Dell is coming out with a tiny pc which is even smaller than the mac mini (Dell EC280). It has a slightly slower processor, more ram and hard drive space, comes with a monitor, and will cost about $350. Now, how was that again? Can't find the form factor for cheaper? Also, the board Dell is using for these is an Intel board specifically meant for tiny form factor PCs. This means that more manufacturers will be offering these soon. Additionally, Via has announced 'pico-itx' which is a full power MB in an '80s-cellular-phone-size form factor. When you can buy $500 phone-sized PCs and Mac's (by comparison) gigantic mini still costs $600 or more, this 'myth' will be even LESS 'punctured' than it is right now. Hint: Apple's control over their hardware has a cost. What's the cost? Well, for starters, Apple can't compete with PC at most price points. If one PC manufacturer doesn't have a better deal than Apple at a given performance level/form factor/processor speed/whatever you want, some other PC manufacturer sure will.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Dell's cheaper options cover at least 75% of the market.
THAT makes all of the complaints about Macs being expensive NOT FUD.
It's true. Apple's aren't cheap. They never have been. Deal with it.
The bogus comparisons just make Mac pundits look bad.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The natural instinct of most shoppers is to look for the cheapest thing that fits into the category they want, regardless of quality or bang for your buck.
I'm just wondering how long it's going to be before the "ATTN: SWITCHEURS" guy comments this story.
+++ATH0
Where do the build it yourself geeks come into play? I'm quite sure that others besides myself have killer deals on laptop logic boards and cases since we've worked for certain companies. Not to mention that since laptops have to think about power consumption, even those higher-end graphics cards will look crippled compared to my aging 256 meg AGP GeForce 6200 on my desktop. I've run the tests, a dual-core Turion x2 with a GeForce Go 7200 laptop can't even play Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 (Designed for a Pentium 3 with a 16 meg graphics card) without turning down the graphics detail to 640x480 with minimal texture detail and no fog. Same thing with the Intel Core 2 Duos.
And that was just testing in my spare time at work. Imagine if I really had the capability and time to just randomly test any piece of hardware using a game as an example. Seriously, it's sad when an actual Pentium 3 desktop system running at ~600 MHz with a 32-meg GeForce 3 beats out a 1.4+ GHz Core 2 Duo with a 128 meg GeForce Go 7200 at running something so simple as a Tony Hawk game. (And nobody at work believed me until I installed and ran the game on their work systems, then tried it on a customer's laptop for testing purposes.)
Not trying to troll, but my RL experience and tests say that laptops just won't really cut it unless you pay some serious cash into it and get desktop-spec hardware crammed into the laptop (with the exception of alienware, which now sucks major balls.) End of story.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
For my MBP with the 7200 option I ended up paying less than 2000 with the educator discount.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Aside from having lower prices for "comparable" specs between Apple and major PC laptop brands, what about service? I don't have any experience with Macs in anything other than casual use. But, if I need a memory or processor upgrade or replacement, is it easy enough to do on a Mac laptop? If I can't easily perform upgrades on my own, how much is the service to have someone do this? Is it any more than a PC? What about software prices for Macs? Any different than PCs? What about other accessories, such as external hard drives? It seems a valid comparison should encompass these things, as well. Sorry if this was in TFA --- I didn't read the whole thing.
My roommate bought an HP dv9535us last weekend and paid $1349. It has a 17" WXGA display. To get a 17" display from apple you have to pay a minimum of $2799. Let's compare:
HP Apple
OS Vista Home Premium OS X
CPU 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo
RAM 2GB DDR2 2GB DDR2
Hard Drive 160GB SATA (5400rpm) 160GB SATA (5400rpm)
Display 17" WXGA 17" WSXGA
Graphics Intel X3100 (shared RAM) GeForce 8600M GT 256MB
Optical Drive DVD+/-R DL/DVD+/-RW/CD-RW DVD+/-R DL/DVD+/-RW/CD-RW
Weight 7.7lbs 6.8lbs
Both have built-in wireless, webcams and audio. The HP has a built-in fingerprint reader.
The Mac has better specs, but not $1450 better.
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Since Apple went to x86, not one fucking person on this planet has room to talk since it's all the same hardware architecture. They're all PCs, (personal computers) but laptops need to sacrifice performance for power consumption. You pay for the NAME and the PROPRIETARY OS when you buy Apple, and yet you can't do (without Virtualization such as Parallels) 3/4 of what a Windows machine will do unless you do something like install Linux and compatible binaries for your architecture, then install WINE and CEDEGA.
That's REALLY sad, since I still have a working and running Macintosh Powerbook Duo 210 (second to last or last revision that used Motorola processors,) and it does most of what I need under OS 7. I use that laptop for browsing the web and anything else my desktop doesn't do, and my Windows desktop for gaming.
This is a non-issue now since it's all x86. The ONLY difference truly is EFI instead of BIOS.
~A long-time Apple user and former laptop repair tech.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
a few other things to make them better priced next and more in line with other x86 hardware. /CD-RW apple should be able to get that for the same price as cdwr / dvd drives.
all systems now days come with DVD burners
$75 to go from 512mb to 1gb is way to much.
The I-Macs use laptop parts and the $999 i-mac with 512mb and gma 950 with a cdwr / dvd should be dropped in price or removed as for a $100 more you get 1gb of ram, faster cpu with more l2, DL dvd burner / cdwr and ATI Radeon X1600 graphics.
The mini at $ 600 is a little high for a older core 1 cpu and only 512mb system ram with gma 950 and a $800 system with 512mb of ram and gma 950 with a older cpu like that is a ripoff.
The macbook black should have a real video card or a Turbo Cache / hyper memory card at the $1500 price level as there are other laptops at that price with them.
The Mac Pro is overkill for people who need a desktop system with video better then the low end on video in the mini and FB-DIMMS for ram do not help it too and only an nvidia 7300 in a $2000 desktop system?
Apple should replace the mini with a mini tower with DESKTOP PARTS and pci-e slots that can take a full pci-e x16 video card with other slots left over and maybe low end on board video as well. You can keep the same base price as the mini upping it to 1gb ram and a newer cpu. Maybe even push the old mini down to the g4 mini price levels.
I posted this on the article comments as well:
Something is wrong here.. at least compared with apple canada and dell canada's websites.. a similarly configured XPS1710 comes out to $3078 (compared to $3099 with apple) with the following specs:
Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo T7600 (2.33GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, 667 MHz FSB)
17 inch UltraSharp(TM) Wide Screen UXGA Display with TrueLife(TM)
2GB DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHZ, 2 DIMM
160GB 5400 RPM SATA Hard Drive
8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
512MB NVIDIA GeForce Go 7950 GTX - $400 Value
Not exactly the same, but pretty damn close.
Laptops are more tricky, but it really just comes down to buying Intel or AMD. Right now Intel is the way to go for laptops - and has been since at least 2003. Last time I just poked around on the internet to find that this seemed to be the consensus.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
He also doesnt tend to mention heat. The Dell XPS's, though large and clunky, are quite powerful, but youre able to sit them on your lap for an extended period of time, and even play a game like that for a short amount of time. A macbook pro, any size, gets to like 140 degrees doing absolutely nothing because its not ventilated properly, as well as it being made of metal, which conducts more heat. those things will scorch you like crazy if you sit them on your lap. and yes, i understand theyre "notebooks" not "laptops" anymore, but the general populous is still going to want to sit this thing directly in front of them occasionally, if they dont have a desk to put it on.
If this guy has a BS in Computers and needs Vista performance index to decide what computer to buy I seriously doubt the quality of a US education. No wonder we need H1Bs to come and run our companies. But seriously I think hes bluffing - noone with a real CS degree is that stupid. Its this kind of talk which gives US Engineers a bad rep.
**Life is too short to be serious**
According to the Apple Store'sMac Mini page:
By the way, to get the superdrive, you have to get the more expensive Mini ($799). Otherwise it's just a DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive. And I know it's a slot-loading drive, but I've never seen a brand name for that drive, so what's to tell me that it is a better drive? From the point of view of the Apple Store, it is a generic DVD drive. (By the way, can it take a mini CD/DVD?) Also, what's special about the Apple memory, other than being expensive? I never see a brand name given with the memory specs, either.
Also, the $599 Mini only comes with 512MB RAM and a 60 GB hard drive. It's hard to find another desktop with such a small hard drive. In fact, the cheapest desktop I can find on Dell's website (Dimension E520) costs $379, and uses a Pentium D 925 (not a 64-bit Core 2 Duo, but it's still dual core), 160 GB hard drive, and 1GB RAM, and Intel GMA X3000 graphics instead of the GMA 950 in the mini.
The truth is, the Mini is somewhat in-line with the low-end Windows boxes, but everything is packed into such a small space, and that's what you're paying for (paying in terms of performance and in price). Personally, I think it's a decent trade-off, so long as you understand its limitations. That said, I'm leaning towards an iMac or a Mini when I get around to buying my next computer. I like the small size and footprint of the mini, but by the time I spec out a Mini to meet my needs, I'm in the price range of an iMac. I think it's a stretch to say that the $599 Mini is so much better than the "bottom of the barrel" stuff out there. It has a niche, and works out alright for that niche.
I didn't read every post here (so spare me the RTFA), but I'm surprised no one metioned the slashdot article about HardOCP's '30 days with mac OSX': http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/05/ 148259
of course the point wasn;'t to compare prices or even hardware, but they came to the conclusion that a Mac is going to cost you without much digging at all. I think the proverb they came up with was: 'if you have a problem, you will need to buy your way out of it'. So just for upgrades alone, Macs are actually a bad deal.
from the HardOCP article:
"The hardware lock-in and lack of quality freeware makes owning and maintaining a Macintosh an expensive endeavor."
for the cost of a machine, you need to look a little further past the sticker shock.
certified elipsis abuser
I'd like to apologize by revising earlier statements (edited sections in bold):
99% of the time, PCs are cheaper than Macs.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
"Your not paying 2,799.00 for the hard drive"
OK, maybe it's a typo.
"your paying it for the bigger screen"
Hmm. Seems not.
"failed your case since that runs just about right to all of the other 17 laptop manufacturers"
Not an idiomatic expression. Several decidely unidiomatic ones, in fact.
"you would STILL have a smaller HD to the MPB"
Smaller than.
"I ended up paying less than 2000 with the educator discount."
Please tell me you got that through someone else. Please.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
If you want a quad- or octo- core xeon workstation-class computer that doesn't sound like a helicopter taking off, and you either mainly do 2D work or at all or are in the market for a $1k+ pro graphics card then Apple is good value. However, if you want a 1 or 2 core mini-tower with a gaming-quality 3D card then, not so much.
If you want a tiny but reasonably powerful and very quiet desktop "micro PC" then waffle waffle Mac Mini However, waffle waffle..
(Rinse and repeat across the whole Apple range)
Get the idea? Apple have a small-ish range c.f. Dell, and concentrate on a few not-for-Walmart niches. Whether they are good value depends on exactly what you want, how you rate Apples design and quality and how much value you place on OSX.
Oh, and they don't update their product range nearly as frequently as big box-shifters, so the picture varies monthly...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
"A more elegant weapon for a more civilized age"
Cost to build your own PC: 500 dollars, give or take 100. And it can still play wow. (Note: I don't play wow.)
OS cost: 10 dollars for students of certain universities for a copy of winxp or vista, free for those of us who prefer a Linux alternative.
Cost to build your own mac: null. No Alternative part sources, no case alternatives.
OS cost: The cost of a full computer, no alternatives.
watching Zealots battle it out over a web board? Priceless.
By contrast, when I order a new Apple notebook on their web site, each specific detail is listed, and can be customized in many cases. If the competition was sold identically, I think people would have a clearer sense of what they're getting for their dollar. You're comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended). That is, you're comparing brick-and-mortar stores to an online retailer.
Go to Dell's site. You'll find even more information than Apple provides.
RTFComments
My husband and I were looking for laptops last year, and we could easily find used iBooks that would meet our needs for around $600. Macs generally last longer than PCs - my eMac is five years old and running great, we're not planning on upgrading it for at least a couple more years unless something goes seriously wrong (hard drive dies, for instance). A two-year-old used Mac laptop will have no problem meeting basic needs for several more years; if you need something better, then this article applies and the new Macs are comparable to other laptops.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
>If this guy has a BS in Computers and needs Vista performance index to decide what computer to buy I seriously doubt
>the quality of a US education. No wonder we need H1Bs to come and run our companies. But seriously I think hes bluffing -
>noone with a real CS degree is that stupid. Its this kind of talk which gives US Engineers a bad rep.
No, I am not bluffing - I do, in fact, have a BS - not in "computers" but in "Computer Science". For the uninitiated, Computer Science is mostly about algorithm development and execution - very little about hardware. My sole exposure to hardware in my education was one course of assembler (though this was still programming and so a stretch to say it was "about hardware) using the Motorola 68000 processor, and one class where we built simple hardware logic devices (AND, OR, NOR gates, etc.) using chips on a breadboard.
In my younger days I just happened to be "into" hardware (I used to read the old "Computer Shopper" mag - back when it was a small phone book size - from cover to cover relishing all the comparisons). But my formal education had very little to do with hardware.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
How does a CS degree tell you if an Intel Core Duo is better than an Athlon FX?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I head a joke once:
PC users are smart.
Mac users ars smart... with CLASS
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I will consider buying a Mac laptop the day their keyboard will stop sucking so bad. I cannot believe that Apple get away with such flimsy and ugly keyboards on their recent laptop line. Even the keyboard on low-end Asus generic laptop are better than those on Powerbook.
In the meantime, I will continue to buy refurbished Thinkpad. These people know how to build reliable laptops with good ergonomy (decent keyboard and no stupid trackpad on my X30).
:wq
Steve Jobs even said they aren't looking for the dominant marketshare. Ford sells more vehicles than Ferrari, but that doesn't mean Ferarri isn't exactly where they want to be. You just choose one based on what you need or are looking for. If I'm getting a new computer I could care less that a Dell is cheap, because it won't run OS X. (And before you jump in with Linux I'm talking about new machines. I run Linux on my servers that have some very old hardware.)
I was responding to someone who said that PCs only ruled the low-end market. I countered that I was able to put together a respectable (not low-end) Dell business system for $650, yet the cheapest MacBook still weighs in at $1100.
The keywords there were "not low-end". PCs are still way cheaper that macs, even for decent configurations. The system I spec'ed for my wife far exceeds her requirements, but for $650, why not?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
A year ago I got a 17" widescreen Dell notebook with 1920x resolution. DualCore 2ghz. 2gigs of RAM. A 100gig 7,200rpm drive. Windows XP MCE. And several other add ons.
I was able to purchase said laptop for about $1,600. I looked at Macs and the equivalent specs were approaching $3,000.
Yes, I use a coupon. But they are readily and publicly available and even without the coupon the laptop was under $2,400. A full $600 less than the Mac.
So I call BS on this post...
So no, many people do not understand that Apple has no low-end. They actually think that all PC makers have the same low end, and that the only difference is price.
You might do your friends a favor if they ask you while they're shopping, but don't try too hard beyond that.
I know a guy who bought 1-wheel drive Kia Minivan. It was always in the shop. He still thinks he got a great deal. I paid almost $8K more for our Pontiac SV6 AWD and I'm sure he thinks I'm an idiot for doing so, even when his wife is stuck at the bottom of the driveway ("well she can just walk") in a snowstorm.
If you can "just walk" you can "just resolve DLL conflicts". Different Strokes, and all that.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"OS X really costs $300... and it's worth it!"
(adjust for the model of Mac you bought)
Even if Macs are cheaper in some weird parallel universe I don't want to be associated with anything like this.
jk jk jk - I just missed the SWITCHEUR/GTFO guy
Ok, your post shows up as #19441895, replying to #19441723. What post were you actually trying to answer with this?
BASELINE, CHEAPEST MACBOOK: $1099
CHIP: 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
RAM: 1 gig, DDR2 533mhz
DRIVE: 80 gig
VIDEO: Integrated Intel with 64 megs (not a typo!) shared memory.
DELL INSPIRON 1501: $799 (from Dell's site
CHIP: Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 2GHz
RAM: 1 gig DDR2 533mhz
DRIVE: 120 gigs
VIDEO: ATI Radeon Xpress1150 256 megs dedicated memory
So where does Apple win? Dell just gave me a technically superior machine -- 64 bit processor, larger hard drive, insanely better video card. The Dell also comes with Vista Home, if you're wondering -- I didn't cheat and go for some freeDOS or anything. For three hundred less.
Oh, the Macbook is smaller. Whooptee do. That doesn't matter at all to me; it's purely subjective if it matters to you, but is it really worth 300 more dollars and a crappier machine?
This was just the first random Dell I saw, so don't give me wah-wah-wah Dell sucks or Inspiron sucks. When I was shopping for a laptop I actually did consider a Macbook until I saw how much more I could get from other manufacturers for less money -- Toshiba and HP had similar prices for similar machines. (I ended up with an HP.) IBM's Thinkpad came very close, but the specs were close enough that you could call it a borderline case and the Thinkpad came out like a hundred dollars more.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Anyone with a BS even in Biology or Geology or anything not even remotely connected to computers has spent 4 years at college, done numerous assignments for which they have had to look up information from sources like libraries, textbooks,notes and nowadays websites. Such a person is more than capable of doing some online research to figure out which is better from the various benchmarks available online. If you are not and really do have a BS I have to conclude you spent your entire 4 years only at keg parties and never submitted an honest assignment. Either you were on a football scholarship (do you get football scholarships for CS?) or your daddy made a large contribution to the college to get you your BS.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Let's try making an HP dv9500t laptop... Hmmm, without a few minor downgrades I can get a laptop for $1720. Let me see if I can put my math degree to work here... thats $1080 less than the laptop the article was talking about! To be fair, here are the things that had to be changed:
2.2 Ghz processor instead of 2.4Ghz: Really, that a bit excessive unless you plan to running 17 instances of Supreme Commander at a time anyhow. Being that Macs are not the paragon of gaming, not much need for that anyways. None the less, not work the thousand to upgrade
Cant's tell if the HP has gigabit ethernet: Again, unless you're in a corporate environment, or have a fairly extensive home network, no need. If this is your one computer, absolutely no need. 100 will do just fine.
I'm not going to get into the other arguments about PC vs. Mac, but this argument is bogus.
I'm in the market for a laptop currently, and as I was asking for advice, someone suggested getting a Mac. I hadn't even thought of it, mainly because I believed the price would be prohibitive. Not to miss out on a potential good deal, though, I went and compared the stats. I was looking at an Acer travelmate 7514, which comes with 2 gigabytes of ram, an AMD Turion X2 processor @ 1.8 GHz, 160 gb drive, 17" widescreen display and a Geforce Go 7600 SE. That would come to about 900 euros over here. What could I get from Apple for that? Well, I couldn't of course, the closest is a 970-Euro Macbook, which comes with a Core Duo processor, 512 mb of ram, 13" display, 60 gigabyte hard disk and integrated graphics. I think I'll go with the Acer instead. Now, of course, you might say that sub-1000 euro prices are low-end and apple just doesn't do that, but looking at the specs of that Acer, I don't feel it's exactly a low-end machine, even though the Turion processor isn't exactly the greatest thing out there. The Macbook, on the other hand, can't be described as anything else than low-end, it just has a big pricetag on it.
You have to admit that a Mac Pro @ $2500 for 4 cores, $4K for 8 cores, is a heck of a machine. FB-DIMM is a problem though, but you can blame Intel for that one.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I almost bought a new Mac Powerbook Pro (UXGA) for about $1500, instead of an exactly equivalent HP for about $1600. But then I realized that the Mac has only one mouse button. I want to use the notebook primarily for Ubuntu, but dualbooting into OSX doesn't make up for having to press some key combo instead of a right mouse button or in combination with the only button to make "left+right" work.
If Apple made a two-button touchpad with a cap for "Mac mode" that spanned both buttons, triggering on either, then I'd buy the Mac. They look nicer than the HP, and match the world's new iPod style.
--
make install -not war
For example, visit one of your local retailers like Office Depot, OfficeMax, Best Buy, or Circuit City,
That's your first mistake. Anything you buy at a box retail isn't going to be what you want or need. Try Dell, Lenovo, or even HP's web stores. You can choose your model, customize your configuration, and then order all from the comfort of your couch. You can even compare models without having to go between stores.
If you don't want to wait for a custom configured machine, reputable computer retailers like CDW will gladly sell you a pre-configured laptop at a good price (if you know where to look...like in the CDW Outlet). They even provide all the specs and the manufacturer's model number (if you want to go to their support site for more info).
It always amazes me that people think a Best Buy or even Walmart is the place to go to buy a PC.
My Sysadmin Blog
The point wasn't that he couldn't figure out which one is better. The point is that buying a computer shouldn't be a research project. It's not worth your time to spend 20 hours researching specs and performance and and trying to determine if what you're seeing is factually correct or some marketing trash that's only correct under certain conditions.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
.......I think it's time to allow companies to produce OS/X based clones.....
Obviously you are not a Mac user. Computers are much more than a piece of hardware with some software grafted on or in. They are a synergistic system. Apple is the ONLY personal computer maker who builds both as an integrated system "that just works". Why should they give up that exclusive advantage? Just to compete with MS for something nebulous called 'marketshare'?
By what logic do you suppose that allowing clones would help their high end hardware business? They have nothing to gain and lots to lose by trying to compete in the cutthroat PC business.
All theory is gray
It's always IMHO great to hear that someone has discovered this fact about relative costs of similarly equipped Macs and non-Macs, but the situation has been pretty much unchanged since the Mac was introduced in 1984. When it is possible to comparable similarly-equipped machines, Macs traditionally fare well. However, it isn't always possible to find non-Macs that are equipped similarly to Macs, since Macs tend to have certain features years in advance of non-Macs. (I'm sure the opposite is true, too.) For example, every Mac ever made has had built-in networking, including the 128 Mac of early 1984. In the same era, Macs had GUI's and bit-mapped displays. The same 1984 model had a four-channel sound synthesizer built-in, allowing the simultaneous creation of four arbitrary sounds--PCs of the day could only beep. More recently, Macs lead the pack with USB, Firewire, WiFi, Bluetooth, and Bluetooth EDR. I'm sure others can add to this list.
Which leads me to believe that the so called experts rarely, if ever, actually consult with Mac owners. I think this is a big part of the wave of professional iPhone haters that have come out recently. I never heard anyone complain as bitterly as these people do when the first Mobile Windows/Pocket PC phones came out, in fact they were falling over themselves gushing with praise for the Treo W's without even having used one first.
The grandparent is not blaming System 76 for anything; he's saying that if you compare two otherwise identical items, one of which can do something that the other can't, the former item is obviously more valuable. Why it can do something extra doesn't matter.
.....Apple has terrible hardware/driver support.....
They support everything THEY make. Everything 99% of users need is built into their computers. So what if they don't support your no-name video card or special cell phone gizmo? Get support from the gadget maker and if they don't support it on a Mac, get a windows PC and cross your fingers that they do. If you use Linux, probably a fervent prayer to the computer gods won't help either.
All theory is gray
I'm not suggesting that they start selling boxed OS/X to load on any X86 clone out there. I'm suggesting that they license a few OEM's to build systems guaranteed "to just work", just like the Apple equivalents. But either limit them contractually to the low end or just have enough faith in their own abilities to make their high-end hardware appealing enough to compete.
I guess I'm assuming that most of Apple's current mac customer base would stick with Apple hardware, either because they can already afford it, or because they're 'cult of Apple' types that would pay extra even if they didn't have to. Maybe that's a false assumption. But if it's not, then low-end clones would mean Apple's computers would be running a 'more mainstream' OS, and would have more available applications. That's got to be good for Apple. Whether it's better they their current monopoly control of a non-mainstream system with limited application availability is an interesting question. I just wonder whether they're asking it of themselves these days.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
The author first compares a high end Mac to Dell's XPS series because Inspirons cannot reach 2.4Ghz in the processor department. Is there that significant of a difference between 2.16Ghz and 2.4Ghz? I doubt it. I just went to www.dell.com, clicked my way through to the 17" Inspiron, and configured a model with 2GB RAM, equivalent optical drives, equivalent video card, and 2.16Ghz processor. The cost? Less than 1800$. I'll admit that the sound, ports, and several other "intangibles" might not perform as well as those on the Apple model. How much would an external webcam cost? Probably less than the 1000$ difference with the MacBook Pro.
Next, just being curious, I configured the 17'' XPS. I stopped after a simple processor upgrade took the cost to 2800$. I can't explain why an XPS would cost so much, but I'm assuming it has something to do with it's power as a gaming machine over the Inspiron and the MacBook Pro.
As for Sony, their laptops are over priced.
What about the companies not mentioned in the article? Here's a quick summary of models and their prices at a similar configuration to the MacBook Pro (with any important information added, all prices rounded up to the nearest 100$):
HP dv9500t (383MB video RAM, 2.2Ghz processor, 1440 x 900) - 1600$
Asus (2.2Ghz, from www.newegg.com) - 2100$
Gateway (2.16Ghz) - 1900$
(After checking www.sony.com, an equivalent system is well over 3000$)
I did not check several other companies, such as Acer or Fujitsu, because their websites did not offer configuration and Newegg did not have a 17'', 2+ Ghz model.
These systems are obviously not the same as the MacBook Pro, and I won't attempt to put a price on service, support, software, etc... But I was able to find several systems that I would deem equivalent (or close enough) in less than 10 minutes time. I can only assume that if I took the time to investigate other companies or models, I could find a better deal.
The author spent the bulk of his comparison with the MacBook Pro comparing it with the XPS and Vaio, both of which are ludicrously overpriced. He admits, if only for one sentence, that HP, Tobisa, and others offer "models in the $2,000 neighborhood that approximate the MacBook Pro's equipment."
As I've already stated, I don't think the jump from 2.2Ghz to 2.4Ghz is worth the increase in price.
Next, the author compares 13" MacBooks to 12" and 13" notebooks. Fist, Sony has already been discussed. Second, the sub-14" offerings on the PC market are almost always ultra-portable devices and as such are more expensive, much like notebooks designed for gaming cost more due to their relatively niche market. In my opinion, 14" or 15" screens are now the de facto standard for a midrange notebook. Assuming Dell's Inspiron has average prices, I configured a 15.4" wide-screen model to match that of a standard MacBook. Once again, the peripherals were not exact, Dell offered a better video card, and the Inspiron had a lower clock speed.But the bottom line? A 400$ difference in price (not including the 200$ paint job).
Finally, we have the iMac. I chose to configure a Dimension E5200 on Dell's website. I chose 2.13Ghz RAM (more than the iMac), a 17" Flat Panel monitor (same as the iMac), 1 GB memory (same as the iMac), 250GB HDD (more than the iMac), 16x optical drive (better than the iMac), and 256MB video card (more than the iMac).
The cost? 879$ versus 1199$: a difference of 240$, or 20% of the iMac's cost. I wouldn't say that 20% is comparable.
If you want to make the claim that Macs are not more expensive than PCs, feel free to discuss software. Tell me about usability. Hell, you could even make the case that Mac's have more style. But this article only makes a comparison in hardware. It matches the all-purpose MacBook to the gaming XPS models, ultra-portable 12" notebooks, and overpriced Sony products. When matched up with the rest of the PC market, the article often lacks concrete pricing and technical specifications.
And when accurate technical comparisons are made, Macs are just more expensive.
Yes, as they are throw away items with limited upgradability even in the PC world. This is not the case with PC's. Also if you want a cheap PC it's _really_ cheap, not so for a Mac.
But yes thier laptop range _is_ very competive at some price points. Shame they don't have an option for a _propper_ UK keyboard, otherwise I may have bought one.
Sony is teh suxxorz where drivers are concerned. I've had to deal with multiple Sony laptops and Clies. They are beautiful pieces of hardware while they work but once they freak out it becomes a total nightmare. Freaky custom installers, lack of downloadable files ($25 for a freaking driver CD? Bite me!), and sometimes custom cabling that they have no supplies for (I'm looking at you, external CDRom drive that needed a weird two-port USB cable for power!)
Apple can be picky about drivers, no doubt. But with the exception of a blue G3 (G4?) tower with a defective mobo, I've never had an Apple degrade the same way every Sony computer device has. (I only speak of their computers. I've got a Playstation 1 that refuses to die, along with an old receiver.)
I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
If you think H1B come over to "run" companies, you made one too many trips to the keg yourself. They are used to reduce cost and supress wages, but they don't get the C class jobs.
A reasonable way of looking at things. Right until you remember that the PC is coming with a bundled copy of Windows that if you bought it in a box would cost anywhere between $100 and $300 depending on the version. And since I don't buy Windows boxes with less than XP Pro on it, we're talking about $300. Now both operating systems can be removed from the equation and we're right back to comparing hardware and then the Apple gets its ass kicked again.
I am not surprised at all that when you soup up a Dell to have top-end Mac features it costs way more than a Mac. That's like buying a Ford Escort and then having the dealer replace the engine with a Corvette engine, customize the suspension, replace the interior, replace the wheels and tires, replace the stereo and speakers, etc. and then when the car costs $70,000 claim that Fords are more expensive than Acuras [or something, insert your own brand, I know crap about cars].
Besides, everyone knows that Dell makes all their profit from upgrades. Last time I checked it cost $300+ to upgrade from an AMD64 X2 4800 to a 6000, when you can buy the 6000 CPU online for $241. So of course they cost more when you buy a low end and turn it into a high end laptop.
Last year my supposed girlfriend wanted a laptop. I found some great deals on Dells at slickdeals.net for $599 or $699. She wanted the new mac laptops that were $1599 and $1799. When I compared them side by side, there was no major difference for the $1000. When I compared CPU, HDD, RAM, the basics, they were identical.
Yes, the Mac looked waaaaay sexier, and the screen was nicer and I think had slightly higher resolution, and the laptop was slimmer and I assume lighter, and it had some other minor, but slick, differences. All of which are worth maybe a few hundred more, but not $1000 IMHO. And all those things are important for power users. And the difference between good and great is in the details. And I do indeed drool over the Macs like I will never drool over a Dell.
But she wanted it to take notes in class and do some work at home from time to time. And for that, the Mac was almost 3x the price for the same basic hardware.
If you think the Mac Mini is "near-silent" then your hearing has been severely damaged.
I have a Mac Mini (1.83GHz Core Duo so its fairly new) and not only is it noisy, it is just as noisy as my several-years-old Sony PCV-MXS10 PC. Boy was I disappointed when the Genius Bar techs told me the Mini is supposed to sound like that.
Wouldn't that be an apples to apples comparison?
Oh, and by the way... nobody's bothering to notice *why* Apple is price competitive these days. I think it's because, with the iPod, they've gotten into a high-volume, high-margin business for the first time. They're making so much money there that they no longer need to charge an 'Apple premium' for their Macintosh computers, and in fact are able to remain quite healthy in spite of competing more or less directly on price in the market for mp3 players.
In other words, they no longer need to make as much money on each Macintosh in order to stay in business. That's why they can afford to price their laptops competitively. Also, there is enough computer use these days centered on portable Internet technologies that the vaunted Microsoft network effects are less important than they used to be (in the home market at least). So, again, their Macintosh business is less threatened by 'everyone else using Windows' than it used to be. They can afford to write of huge segments of the market without becoming completely irrelevant.
But why should they? Apple's in a completely different position as a business than they were the last time they allowed clones. On the one hand, it's less necessary for them to offer low-end systems, and so they aren't being forced to find a way to do it. But on the other hand, they're better able to compete with the clones that they license than they were the last time around. I don't know how those 2 opposing effects balance out, but I suspect that they're at worst a wash. Then again, I don't see the Apple clones anywhere, so maybe they've done the analysis and decided it won't work for them...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Macbook pro 1999$
Dell equivalent 1449$
Here is the link to the image from both web site that I pasted:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=536493127& size=o
That journalist probably forget to remove the commission he received from apple to write this article. Maybe with that amount in balance he can pay the same amount for mac than for pc ... I can't.
For(k;;)(Fork();)
2 minutes of looking one the web: $2100 ASUS G Series G2S-A1 NoteBook Intel Core 2 Duo T7500(2.20GHz) 17.1" Wide UXGA 2GB DDR2 667 160GB 5400rpm DVD Super Multi NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT or Just added to your cart MacBook Pro, 17-inch, 2.4GHz Quantity: 1 Item Price: $2,948.00 bumped up screen and added modem to mac. different speed ram and proc (sorry couldn't get exact) but $850 doesn't justify the difference.
If I was getting a multimedia machine I am getting a Mac, hands down, no debate.
Despite questionable reading comprehension, you seem to have arrived at the point eventually. Yes -- when you need a workstation to work seamlessly with all its parts in a high performance situation, putting together a Windows-based PC Frankenbox is an exercise in self-defeat.
These stories are free but worth money.
Enough so that their customers will endure a significant lack of software offerings to stay their customers.
I disagree here. With things like iLife and Final Cut, I think a lot of Apple's market lately is from their proprietary exclusive software (and hardware). They might not have the edge in breadth of software (I still can't find a fraction of what the Wintel platform offers for freeware), but their strategies of offering a small number of apps unique to the platform, plus enough general apps to get by out-of-the-box, does them well.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
No, it's people who think CS and industrial engineering are branches of engineering that give engineers a bad rep. If it doesn't require at least a full year of calculus-based physics, plus differential equations, it's not engineering.
"$75 to go from 512mb to 1gb is way too much."
That's nothing.
Have a look at the prices Apple charges for more RAM in the new MacBook Pro series, the 15" model.
To go from 2 GB to 4 GB they want you to spend $750. (Yes, that`s 750 like in "seven hundred and fifty").
Another example, also from the MacBook Pro 15" offering:
A 160 GB HD drive with 5400 rppm is standard, Apple asks $150 for the BTO option of getting an HD drive of the same capacity (160 GB), just with 7200 rpm.
You still have to research what hardware you're working with(working with logic devices): How does it tick? What is its limits?
I understand your point of view: Your mind is focused on more important things than researching and shopping for hardware.
I mean... it's only a $500+ investment right? That's easily affordable? It's only close to the cost of a good vacuum cleaner, washing machine, dryer, and dish washing machine.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
The author picks a handful of Mac products that support his point and compares each with the most expensive counterpart he could find. Not exactly hard-hitting journalism here.
Apple does have some attractive price points with some of their product lines. Their notebooks are very well-priced, and are of superior construction to most PC notebooks. I find the Mac Mini to be a great bargain as well. However, that's about it. PC desktops by and large are much cheaper. But the add-ons are where Apple really gets you. Compare Cinema displays to the same monitors made by Dell. They're over 30% more. Same with RAM, hard drives, etc.
If I were in the market for a notebook today, I'd go with a Mac. Same goes for a small, cheap computer to use for running presentations, etc. -- I'd go with a Mini. Other than that, you tend to get more for less out of a PC.
and spec a loaded Powerbook VS Dell XPS. Went to main UK sites and specced them both up to be as close as possible to each other.
Specs are identical - 4 Gig RAM, 160Gig 7.2k drive, 17" 1920x1200 screen
DELL: T7600 (2.33Ghz), 6x DVD burner, Built in modem, MS Works, Free one year onsite, 7950 GTX graphics card with 512MB DDR
MAC: Core Duo (2.4Ghz), 8x DVD burner, USB modem (take off £35 if you don't want the modem), iWork, (couldn't find similar service from Apple), 8600M GT graphics with 256MB
So in summary, Apple are offering a slightly faster CPU and Dell offer a significantly faster GPU (although 8600 is a DX10 part). Dell seem to provide a significantly better warranty, I'm assuming if your Mac has a problem you mail it back in or take it into a store to be fixed.
So the prices:
DELL - £2,162.75
MAC - £2,529.00 - 17% more.
Not quite sure what to take away from this comparison. Mac is definitely the prettier machine, Dell is the more powerful. 17% isn't too huge a difference in price - less than I'd expected.
You have to add Parallels/Boot Camp and a legimate copy Windows XP so you can user your apps and play your games on the Mac. That adds to the price.
Macs are PCs!
Apple's marketing will never change that. Why are you people so easily swayed by marketing?
Right -- when you're using low impact applications like the ones you've listed the machine you use is much more forgiving. It's kind of funny the way you keep trying to disagree while agreeing with this statement.
These stories are free but worth money.
..... with limited application availability.......
I don't think there is even a single computer function or job that doesn't presently have a Mac equivalent program. There are of course some programs that run only on Windows systems, especially games. Even there, the really popular ones EVENTUALLY get ported to the Mac. Anyone who has a Mac and who also MUST use certain special Windows only software, can easily do so, either with boot camp or virtual machine software, such as from Parallels. I have been using a Windows only chat program called Paltalk. Recently I installed it under Parallels VM on my Macbook and it works just as well as it did on my desktop PC.
I wonder how a price comparison between a Mac running Windows and a Windows only PC could be fairly done. Such a Mac is in effect two computers in one. I feel I do not need antivirus software on the VM since its network exposure is only through Paltalk. All other Internet activity takes place on the much more secure MacOSX. The VM networks through the Mac, which also serves as a firewall in addition to the normal firewall supplied by our ISP. Even if the VM Windows installation did get infected or otherwise damaged, it is trivial to replace the Windows HD image file with a clean one.
If Apple were to license OSX, they would instantly have to deal with many of the support headaches Microsoft has to handle. The computer misbehaves and many hardware makers shove the responsibility off on the software. Since Apple makes it all, the customer has only one place to go for help.
All theory is gray
When I go shopping, I have a simple rule: If I have to check the balance of all my accounts in order to purchase something, then I cannot afford it. Period. However, if I like something and if I can afford it, then who cares? All of us are going to die at some point of time. That is why I never understood people who argue about some small and useless crap like what computer is cheaper and better. Who gives a damn?
Apple's products are pricey and so are BMWs. I know some folks who will never buy a new car not because they cannot afford, but because they simply do not see a need to have a nice ride. Also, there are some people who will not buy a used car. It is all about personal choices. And while I do not doubt that you can save money by getting a Dell, I do not really care about it :) It is your money. If you want to have Linux and FreeBSD and two buttons and a blow job machine, then Mac is not for you -- do not buy it. This is a free society for crying out loud :)
It's just that most joe sixpacks who buy cheap PCs go to their "cool friends" for suport.
That's real reason #2 that it's hard to get a low-end mac that isn't used.
(In Japan, it can be hard to get a used mac, as well, at any rate, not as easy as getting a used PC.)
Yeah, when he needs a new washing machine, he probably walks into sears and turns them all on. Whatever one seems to spin the fastest at his price point...
It was never the case that name-brand PCs were cheaper than Apple. The reason why Pcs are cheaper than Macs is that you can get no-name brand PCs, but you can't get non-Apple Macs. Try comparing them to Asus or BenQ (but not Twinhead, they're crap).
Also, Dell and Sony? They could only have picked worse brands to test against if they'd gone for Acer and Gateway. Try Toshiba and Fujitsu -- of course, then the PCs would have so many features the Macs don't have that the comparison would be just as meaningless.
What's the point of paying the extra $1.00 for the privilege of throwing away 99 pounds of sugar?
(I never really understood this until I had lived in Japan for several years. Now I realize that USAians need to understand this in order to do their part at reducing the human component of global warming.)
Now, the problem with allegory is that it may not apply.
If I had the money for more hardware, I could go cheap and get a used notebook PC with barely enough HD and RAM to boot Linux and find myself with no real improvement over toting around my current ancient clamshell iBook. Well, it would be a little lighter and a little faster. Lighter would matter on the train. If I go for enough HD and RAM to dual boot the MSWindbowls that I'm sure would come with it, I might as well buy a new one, and if I buy a new one, a MacBook looks not much different.
Possible solution? More recent used iBook? Hard to get those in Japan, so the price difference is not really there. Primary advantage that way is not needing to re-boot to get *nix. Also, the current version of NeoOffice handles Japanese a little bit better than OpenOffice (and runs, but only like molasses, on my old clamshell). Also, I can avoid supporting iNTEL. (Do we really want another monopoly?)
Most likely partial solution? Maybe I can scrape up enough money to add enough RAM and HD to the clamshell to dual-boot Linux with a light-weight window manager. (Dual-boot the clamshell because it is now frozen at 10.2 and Linux could cover some of what Jaguar lacks.)
I'm rambling. I need to get back to work.
both of them having 4 gigs and dedicated GPU memory.
Maybe I've missed something here.. There's a 4 gig limit in Vista/XP if you're not using the 64-bit version, but that's all I can think of..
Don't be a dope. I already accounted for that copy of Windows Home. The point is that the Mac costs more than the comparable PC, and it's the value *to me* of an operating system that doesn't suck dirty swamp water through used oil filters that makes it worth paying the extra $200, or $300, or $500.
No matter what accounting games you play, the difference in price is real and represents the value of the software.
This whole article is a complete waste of time. Apple specifically does not want to create a line of cheap computers. Why? Because they have to maintain high profit margins, meaning they make more money per computer sold than the other competitors.
Why is this important? Because Apple invests in itself. Apple uses the profits it makes so that it can fund it's own software development, something that Dell and HP do NOT need to do. Apple cannot rely on 3rd party software developers to develop great software because their market is too small... most software developers go to where the money is, which is Microsoft.
So, that's why products like Safari, i-whatever, are all APPLE developed. If Apple had to rely on Microsoft for a web browser like IE they would be SOL. By having complete control over their hardware, OS, and software, that's how they create a completely great user experience.
So would Apple fanatics PLEASE stop trying to manufacture disingenuous and fraudulent arguments of how Macs and somehow cheaper than PCs? That is patently false. BUT APPLE DOESN'T CARE. They will never compete based on price. If they wanted to, they would be dead by now. They specifically differentiate themselves based on quality, cool factor, etc. And it works. Look at their stock price.
If Apple doesn't care, why do the Apple fanboys care? Just drop it. The whole point of Apple is that they are the Mercedes Benz of computers. If they started trying to compete in the low-end computer segment they would be dead.
And there is a particular backdoor you wanted to install, right?
software that doesn't get sucked into the nearest bot army on the first breach of the NAT?
.zip attachment to get clicked on and everything this side of whatever router was between them and the web is now fair game.
All it takes is one hidden
Junk e-mail is like global warming. Cleaning up the environment incurs some cost.
joudanzuki
You can go even further than that. At work where I deploy software to around 1500 Windows boxes, we have gotten quite a few Macs. So about a month ago I got a nice iMac on my desk to learn so I could do the same for our Macs. After taking a Mac class and playing around I was beginning to enjoy it. After finding Parallels I'm going to buy a Mac. If I can run any OS X app and any windows app (including games) why would I choose anything else?
I was quoted out of context in my autobiography...
most mac users end up buying windows to run under parallels anyways... another $130 unaccounted for in your comparison.
ever get a mac repaired under warranty? yeah good luck. $600 is a drop in the bucket once you send it in (which happens often due to their low quality control).
macs are great for grandma... but definitely not for me.
james
(this is offended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
LOL. I would never do tha....hey waitaminute! :)
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
:nod:
Thanks, CastrTroy, precisely so.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
So very, very true.
Most techies, being naturally helpful and, generally, straight-forward types, aren't too smart when it comes to understanding the ways in which non-techies operate. Microsoft have built much of their success on the ability to offload the support burden, created by poorly written code, onto the world's "guys who know about computers". I'm sure we've all experiences the joys of wasting hours of precious free time fixing someone else's horrifically messed-up Windows system and, worse, felt the resentment when we couldn't fix something, even though it wasn't our bloody fault in the first place.
I checked out of that no-win deal a long time ago.
...So they will bug someone else when they buy the piece of crap Dell and want someone to disinfect it every month or so.
My deal, now, when approached for advice is to sit them down and explain that they should expect to get at least 3 years out of a computer. When discussing the overall price of various options I, therefore, divide the cost of each into 36 months. I price up the Mac options, always, to include the 3yrs of Applecare. I am then blunt in explaining why it's important to have a warranty that covers both hardware and software, so that you've got one number to call and no-one passing the buck. As the cherry on top, I explain that, with Macs, you don't have to worry as much about the nasties, even when running Windows apps.
When, inevitably, they tell me that they were hoping to pay a great deal less and that they don't have that kind of money to spend, I tell them to take out a 3yr loan because, in the long-run, even with the interest factored in, a Mac will save them time, money and aggravation throughout those 3 fully-supported years.
People will spend all sorts of money on all sorts of trivialites; it astonishes me that they are so unwilling to invest in their computers. When you consider how much computer you get for your money these days and when you realize how central the Web has become to most people's social and professional lives, how can $1500 - 2000 over 3yrs be considered a serious problem?
So, when someone approaches me with a Windows problem, I simply say "I don't do Windows" and suggest a professional service.
heh, you can load wow on a linux box, it's just hard, what they should do is pre-install the trial version in wine on a box that runs wow very well, i'd be interested to know how well that thing would sell.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Mac Mini's are due for an update - hopefully to using Intel's newer ULV Core 2 Duo CPUs.
And the entry level Mini should go back to $499, the original price of the mini,
boosting the price of the Mini was one of the most painful mistakes Apple has made.
Dell, Gateway, eMachines will always beat Apple on price,
until Apple can go head to head with the low cost machines -
Apple will always be playing second place to everybody.
The Bottom Line still is The Bottom Line.
Get serious. Division by five, yeah, there is a little rounding error that creeps in there really quick.
But rounding error has been with us since before computers were available to make them for us. Anybody, for instance, who gets excited at 117/5 giving 23.399999999999999999986 is just not understanding the limitations of the tools and using settings he or she doesn't understand. (Heh, I just copy/pasted that in and it pasted in as 23.4. Had to type it in by hand, didn't count the nines.)
But division by two? I think you're just blowing smoke. Any hardware failure that would give a rounding error of that sort when dividing by two is going to be a hard failure of the sort that prevents the OS from booting.
You are partially right, I do not think that any 386's had math coprocessors built in. But I sure spent a bunch of money to put a math coprocessor into the extra expansion socket built just for it on my 386DX board. That simple addition had me playing 486 games that wouldn't even load on it beforehand.
That would work as well for Apple as it works in the PC world—that is, it would fucking suck. If you encounter an untraceable problem, how are you going to know whom to call for support? The software company or the hardware company? Are you going to pore through core dumps and panic logs to find out? Who the fuck has the time or patience for that?
It should work like this: you have an issue with a product, you call the company that made it, not some random third party behind the scenes. You don't sue YKK when your fly grinds your cock to hamburger, you sue Levi's. Why the PC world thinks the computer is some special case apart from every other fucking consumer product on the face of the planet is beyond me.
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
Too right.
The last two times I've been laptop shopping, the breakdown is as follows:
- Dell - feels like plastic bricks, unless you spend a fortune, then they feel like expensive heavy bricks
- Sony - neat but expensive
- Tohshiba - neat but even more expensive
- IBM - expensive and ugly
- Asus - very economical, more features that a nuclear powerstation
- BenQ - as above
seriously. ;-)
you didn't leave Microsoft's junk on that machine you bought for your mom. That's not doing her a favor.
.zip files that aren't zip files do come as mail attachments.
Unless, I suppose, you need an excuse to go visit (and talk while you back her mail up and clean out the malware). But, then, a regular visit to upgrade Fedora or Ubuntu could be a good reason for a visit, too.
Yeah, I know, dialup. But, no.
But, even after all of that, I know that my next laptop will be a Mac ...
Because the one thing Dell cannot give me is ... OS X.
Those who have the time and patience for Windows, good luck to you. As a longtime Windows user, I no longer have the stomach for it - I don't even want to thing of all the time I've already wasted on Windows annoyances. At the end of the day, the better usability and aesthetic Apple offers is of considerable value to me. Again, it may not be of value to you, and that's fine.
Apple has now developed their Mac hardware and OS X to the point at which, for me at least, Windows no longer makes any sense.
....Why the PC world thinks the computer is some special case apart from every other fucking consumer product on the face of the planet is beyond me........
That's because other than Apple all computers are a comittee job based on the interpretions of human language as written in specifications. So which member of the comittee do you blame if it doesn't work? With Apple the blame is clear. This would no longer be true if clones were allowed.
All theory is gray
With a dell, there is no clear differentiation between product lines.
"The second (and to my mind stranger) thing that dell does, is that they sell overlapping products. Looking at just the notebook range for small business you can get an inspiron, a latitude or a precision. There seems to be little in common between the different types of inspiron laptops, 3 of them look similar but are different sizes, the XPCs are in a class of their own and there is the odd one out, the 1300. Likewise with the latitude, the laptop models don't seem to have much in common. It is in no way clear which laptop may suit you, particularly as you can customise them further, upgrading CPUs and RAM.
Compare this to two other laptop manufacturers: Apple and Lenovo thinkpads (formerly IBM). Apple sells two laptop ranges: Macbook and macbook pro. All the macbooks look similar (you can get white or black) and are all 13 and top out at a 2Ghz CPU. The macbook pros all look similar and come in two different form factors 15.4 and 17. For lenovo, there are the X series (ultralite and small), the X series tablet, R series (lower end machines), Z series (high end desktop replacement), T series (high performance portable). Each model also has a number (eg T42), which distinguishes it from previous revisions. All models look exactly the same."
from a blog posting of mine
meh
Apple designs their systems in-house, and contract out manufacturing. What you're suggesting, instead, is that they allow outside companies to design and build OS X systems on their own, as long as they meet some QA standard set and enforced by Apple.
Your suggestion sounds like the wrong cut of the problem space. The way Apple have cut it, all the design people (for the OS, the hardware and the apps) are under the same roof as the people who QA their work.
Are you adequate?
The under-rated Lenevo T60 series is just what you're looking for. You can get a smaller 14", larger 15", or the 15" widescreen (which is a bit wider but the same "height" as the 14).
The only drawback is it only has FW400 onboard. But it can be acquired with an extended-life battery and 160GB drive for under $1500. The T and X series are wonderful. Sturdy construction, excellent LCD panels (with heavy-duty hinges), they don't skimp out on the built in speakers either.
Dell laptops are kinda... bleh.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
mac mini.. nothing to see here move along.
Apple wouldn't have switched to Intel if they weren't specifically going to beat the rest of the industry on comparable machines. They could have maintained PowerPC workstations at a premium over consumer Intel systems, they could have shopped at AMD, they could have introduced a Cell workstation for specific applications, they could have done all kinds of kooky shit to distract from the fact that they couldn't compete with other hardware vendors.
The whole point is to make the common hardware go away, not just by using the same hardware but by charging the end user the same price for it. It takes it out of the picture for both Apple and computer purchasers. It leaves them staring at Mac OS X and Windows Vista and asking questions and that is a game Apple welcomes. (It's called "competition".)
People have been encouraging Apple to go head-to-head with Microsoft by releasing Mac OS X for Intel in a retail software box for generic PC systems. But that isn't going head-to-head with Microsoft because they have a hardware cartel that does pre-installs, that is where 90% of computers got the operating system that they're running right now. The retail box in a store is an entirely different market that only sells upgrades to itself.
Competing with Microsoft means taking the Intel Core x64 -based PC with USB2, FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, Wi-Fi "n", Bluetooth, memory, storage, graphics that the user WAS GOING TO BUY ANYWAY from 2006 forward and fit it with Mac enhancements for the same price as it costs to have it fitted with Microsoft enhancements, and then offer the consumer the choice of "Mac" or "Vista" PC. That represents a real choice, not the same as a few years ago the same user would be asked if they want a P4 2.0GHz or 2.6GHz with their Windows XP? All of the common PC parts just go away in today's comparison and leave you staring at the software.
When Photoshop 10 shipped recently, the first "Photoshop shootout" that I saw was someone running Photoshop 10 for Mac OS X in Tiger on a Mac, and then running Photoshop 10 for Windows in Vista on the same Mac and the Mac won. Only the software stack was compared. Used to be you used two computers for this and blamed the outcome on the Mac's bus speed or the PC's lack of registers. Now we're talking about flaws in Windows that Adobe can't work around, or features of Mac OS X that specifically enable something that the user wants. That is where the choice is now, Mac or Vista, you don't get to compete on 8% more CPU cycles anymore, the game is much more sophisticated.
The obligatory Linux reference would be that Linux and BSD enable you to be your own Microsoft or Apple when that makes sense. An example is Google building their own hardware for their software, or anyone building row after row of Apache Web servers, or TiVo. If you know you're going to basically run one app all the time you don't need Mac or Vista, you just want a way for your software to talk to the hardware without you having to write a kernel. It's as specialized as an iPod, you break a piece off a general purpose system.
I spoke with several of the Linux gurus there about my need for a laptop. I was surprised at the response I received. They all suggested I purchase either an IBM ThinkPad and run some flavor of Linux (their favorites were as diverse as the engineers personalities themselves) OR buy a Mac.
I inquired as to why the toss up. They all liked IBM ThinkPad's hardware. The small form factor of the T42 line (at the time, they were pretty common, now it seems the T60 is the model to have) and the weight as well as the bare bones configuration and Linux compatibility were there main points.
The reason for the Mac was best of all worlds. I could interact with the Engineering/Development team on a *NIX level as well as interact with the corporate side of the house by working natively with Microsoft Office.
So without batting an eye, I dropped $1999 on a PowerBook G4 17" with 100GB HD. I purchased it from CompUSA. I threw in another GB of RAM - no, not Apple's RAM, but Samsung - also from CompUSA for half the price!
To date, I have been extremely happy with my decision. I have since left that company, but so far, I have had no problem interacting with any of the three OS platforms - Apple/Windows/*NIX. I have also since tossed out the two Microsoft products I owned on the Mac as well... MS Office and Virtual PC with Windows XP Pro. All my systems at home are now OS X and Ubuntu. I only have one Windows box - that's on an IBM ThinkPad T42!
I love my Mac and I haven't looked back! The $400 difference in price of the Mac over the IBM was negligible. Besides, my Mac came with software that I actually use - such as iLife (specifically iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, and GarageBand). My IBM ThinkPad came with Windows, some IBM driver stuff, a CD/DVD burning package, and that was it. Warranties are comparable. One year each. However, I purchased Apples extended protection plan for 3 years plus display protection. I have a few friends who have utilized Apple Care and there service has been top drawer with silk stockings - in other words, bloody good! I have used IBM's customer care at work - I am equally impressed.
Aside from being compatible in the corporate world, I also was looking for a laptop that had all the latest hardware features at the time of purchase. I don't buy new equipment very often, so it has to last. The PowerBook had all the trimmings. The closest parallel at the time was some off brand I had never heard of and was around $2500 at the time. The Mac was the deal breaker.
Since my purchase, I have NEVER had a problem with compatibility with Windows in a corporate environment (other than lack of Visio support) - hence the reason I had Virtual PC for a time. All my other apps are 100% compatible... Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Macromedia Firworks, and Macromedia Flash. I run OpenOffice 2.x under X11 without any problems. All in all, I have not spent a single penny on software other than for MS Virtual PC, some decent shareware (Transmit and Unison), VPN Tracker, and upgrading to OS 10.4.x. The Adobe CS1 suite and MS Office was provided by work. Almost the remainder of my software is OpenSource.
When it comes to "dumping money" into the Mac, I just haven't had to do it. In the past, with my PC's, unless I'm running Linux, it seems I was always paying for some kind of software. Now I can save that money and apply them to cool add-on peripherals like my BlueTooth Mighty Mouse or a really nice USB to RS232 connector for configuring Cisco Routers. ;-)
But don't get me wrong here. I do love my Mac,
I've been using PC's for ages.. since the XT's.. no hdd etc.
I'm also a software developer with lots of experience in dotnet, and java etc
This year, I switched from XP to Kubuntu. I'd always had a sceptical view of linux after trying it in 2000. I was pleasantly surprised
As a development/work/web browser machine the linux install blew the pants of XP
Then... i bought a macbook pro. Previously I'd hated macs. I looked down upon those who used them.
The mac is amazing. Every day I'm surprised at how simple and elegant it is. Its powerful too.. all unixy and the like.
You can not buy any laptop that's as good as a mac. Because OSX will be missing
If you must run windows, using parallels i can still use XP at the SAME TIME as OSX - although why anyone would want to do this is beyond me.
Make the switch. It'll be the best, least frustrating "computer" experience you can have
Article sounds dubious...sounds like the writer is Big time apple fanboy & has NEVER compared prices of apple with Dell / HP or probably don't know how to compare pricing... And not everyone buying a Laptop / Desktop cares about it sexyness / bogus hype or weight...there are people that cares for Real specs like processor speed / RAM Size / HD size / Graphics Card speed & RAM, etc... And not everyone wanna run Autocad / Grphic designing for rest of their life... And if apple is any good at making Laptop / Desktop why they have to run negative marketing? I've never seen any negative ads from Microsoft for Zune vs. ipod...
It is nice to see this confusion addressed.
You are forgetting one thing -- Apple does not have noticeable discounts, rebates, etc. Most people, when buying a computer, don't just go to the store and get the first thing off the shelf -- they look for a deal. I recently bought a Sony Vaio laptop for $1.150; a MacBook Pro with similar hardware would cost around $2.400.
My point was merely that mac is ceding more than just the low-end market. Never in the article, nor in the discussion was profit margin discussed. Whether apple cares about that sale or not is beside the point.
I am not criticizing apple. Merely pointing out that you pay a price premium for purchasing one. Nothing wrong with that.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Fine, I'll bite.
OK, so you have more money than you know what to do with, and you really don't care about computers?
It takes about 15 minutes to an hour to find a REALLY smart person or good website to tell you what to look for. Thats what saved many people from buying a P4 instead of the better Core or Athlon 64 processors.
If you do the homework, you might have even find out that the Vista "Performance Index" is close to useless.
I would actually find a person who knows every nuance of every processor, etc, and have them just go and buy the PC for me if I were in your place. They will do a heck of a better job than you can by "buying the most expensive E-machine"
Actually a 66MHz Pentium (586) would be just slightly faster than a 486 120MhZ. 66x2 = 132...
:}
Up until the 586, you could pritty much say a 486 was twice as fast as a 386, as a 386 was twice as fast as a 286...
very generally this held pritty tru.. so a 60mhz 586 was fairly equal to a 120mhz 486... now of course some math programs and specialized software would later run faster on a pentium due to its expanded code set, but general 'compatable' code would run fairly close... if you could get a 386 to wun at 240 mhz (haha) then you would also run simple code as approx the same speed as your P60.. ahh the simple days...
no who knows what CPU does what..
"...if you happen to want what Apple has decided you need"
Like what? Wardware, software? What exactly does this guy think Apple is cramming down his throat?
Try this somewhere outside the USA... say, Australia. Apple charge a hefty "ha ha you don't live in the USA" markup that renders many of their products seriously pricey. That said, it doesn't seem to be as bad with the laptops.
You'll notice that Apple charge an apalling amount extra for sensible amounts of RAM for some of their models, so you must acquire 3rd party RAM in some cases (eg Mac Pro, XServe).
This isn't really true. A pentium 66 could rarely outperform a 486 120MHz. Technically the pentium had 2 pipelines and could do 2 operation per cycle. The pipelines were similar to the 486s, a u and v one if i remember correctly, and one was crippled only able to execute certain instructions. What was it's real ipc though? That's what matters, not some theoretical max. Someone could design a processor that could execute 16 instructions per cycle (current do 4 or so), and it might execute 30 or 40% (yes percent) faster than current machines (try it in simplescalar or your simulator of choice). It would also use up 4-8x more area than current machines (cpu core size, not counting caches).
Phil
The FB-DIMM is less efficient than other kinds if you have more than 8-cores, but the Mac Pro tops out at eight right now. The FB-DIMM is slightly more expensive, but you only have to buy so much of it. Later when there are cheaper alternatives for machines with more than 8 cores, we can make that decision then. Yes the Macs are PCs, just no IBM-PCs or IBM Clones.
- Bluetooth
- Atheros wireless - this means I can use this thing as a wireless access point, or a wireless router.
- Built in infrared - I have it hooked up to my stereo right now with no keyboard, mouse, or monitor - it makes a great jukebox. I use Linux on it and control it through a script I wrote - I can add as many features as I have buttons on whatever remote I want, but it also comes with its own (which I started with)
I know many people don't need this stuff, but I have to mention it as hardware advantages that most PC's don't have. In the near future this thing will be my jukebox, router, DVD player, CVS/subversion server, file server and gaming appliance (through NES, SNES, arcade, and playstation emulation). It does it all for the $599 I bought it for, and fits in the space it'd take to store 5 CD cases.I'm no Mac head, hell I don't even run OSX on the thing, but I certainly don't regret my purchase.
Apple has tight controls these days over replacement parts. Pretty much only authorized repair dealers can get them, and only if they can demontstrate that they have a Mac on hand that they're trying to repair.
I think you're supposed to get a dead Mac to get the nifty case.
So while the Mini loses in not coming with a keyboard and mouse, less storage space, no modem, lame GPU and having a lower clock speed, it wins in that its CPU is dual core, it has wireless, bluetooth, a remote, smaller form factor, it's quieter, and the OS is better (by the opinions of friends... I wouldn't know, I slapped Ubuntu on my mini).
Oh, and not mentioned by the parent - the Mini also has lower ram bus speed because it's mostly based off of laptop parts. I'm being as objective as I can here, but for general use the mini wins in my view. For a gamer it loses, but if you're a gamer, don't buy a mini, no?
DVDshrink
Decent text editor
Decent audio player (NOT itunes)
All those little programs that you take for granted and forget to install when you're reinstalling windows
Virtualisation software
Open Office
Pretty much everything on the Mac costs money. Parallels is great, but will set you back. Windows has VMware AND VirtualPC, both free (small f). There is no real audio player with any clout that I could find besides itunes. Office == MS on the mac.
I'm no MS fan (posting this from Ubuntu, no Windows for almost 2 years now) but when people start comparing cost, this can be a major factor.
Then again, if you figure in the cost of all the bullshit with viruses and malware and everything on Windows, I guess you could call it even.
Please prove me wrong! Any suggestions for decent freeware on the Mac are appreciated.
The last set of clones almost killed Apple because they didn't do any good differentiation. They let people make machines that were faster than the fastest Mac, and they let people make machines that were cheaper than the cheapest Mac. Apple were left with the people who wanted exactly the trade-off between fast and cheap that they offered, which turned out to be a very small proportion of the market. Worse, some of the cheap clones were absolutely terrible, and gave people a very bad impression of the Mac experience.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Show me an Apple laptop with at least 1600x1200 resolution.
What you say?
My 5 year old Dell C840 has a beautiful 15" 1600x1200 screen (note this machine is 5 years old and a modern Apple can't touch it).
Apple killed the midrange desktop. Having to drop two large just to get to a machine I can put an expansion card in is ridiculous.
I still use my old machines, my powerbook is still my MIDI programmer/librarian, my G4 still tracks audio BUT the last two all-around workstations I've bought have been PCs.
If they came out with a quicksilver-ish form factor and stuck a single c2d in it, I'd be all over it.
--- Do you believe in the day?
Apple has a more complete monopoly than MS could ever hope for, and that's somehow OK because they have reduced support problems? If Microsoft tried to pull this shit they would be sued.
Apple completely controls the entire hardware system, Apple completely controls the software, Apple goes after anyone who tries to change the OS, even when it is functionality that users DEMAND. That includes themes.
It's either a cult or a monopoly, pick one. Doesn't matter how vertically integrated they are.
...It's some weirdness I don't understand...
Blar.
Try this experiment if you really want to see what could happen. Go to newegg.com (or any similar site) and see how much desktop you can get for $200.
Apple sells a $300 machine with a 1GHZ CPU, 256 MB of RAM, and 40 GB of disk space. It's called the Apple TV.
I wouldn't be surprised if they suddenly made the apple tv a product aimed at the low-end consumer market. Apple WILL get into this market if it starts to threaten their mac sales, I know that much.
The new macbooks are certainly no slouch. Finally away from the Heat hog G4 processor line - Apple gained some design flexibility with the intel platform. Make no mistake though - they're overpriced.
.4 ghz for +1800rpm, 3gb ram, a real burner and wireless card and game-able video.
No one ever seems to want to compare actual user performance instead of benchmarks.
You can build a Dell or HP with a 7200rpm sata drive, 4gb of ram, a decent 8x DVDRW instead of the limited sueprdrive, an atheros based wireless card with some wattage, and an above chipset video processor with a dedicated 256mb of ram. This is easily attainable with any of these manufacturers for south of $1000 - which isn't even enough to get you the base model MacBook. Sure, the PC might have a 1.8 instead of a 2.2...big whoop. I'll trade
Not to mention an OS that has a real application base.
I love OSX to death - for something to run garage band, or IDVD on. As far as any use beyond that...not really.
Don't forget to take on the apple care to your price either. Something will go wrong in 3 years time, and it will be more expensive to fix than buying a new IBook. Apple laptops have also always been nightmarish to disassemble and repair - for all you do-it-your-selfers. In the time you could have a dell torn down to it's 8 base components - you might have the first layer of flashing removed from the apple notebook - if you figure out how to get it apart without cracking their plastic snap tab cases....
For the fastest 486s, the bottleneck was memory speed. A DX2 66 was usually faster than a DX4 75, because the latter sat on a 25MHz bus, while the former sat on a 33MHz one. Intel never made 120MHz 486s, and I only ever saw them advertised, I never used one, but a 66MHz Pentium was usually faster than a 100MHz 486 due to the fact that it had double the bus speed. Even if the 486 was faster (I don't know if it was), it was usually memory-starved, while the bus on the Pentium could keep it close to saturated.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The guy used the Mac as the benchmark then suped up the PC laptop to beat it before considering its price.
I just priced up a PC laptop on Dell that meets every bit of his Mac spec except for the CPU which is a handful of Mhz slower. If his price for the Mac is 2809 the Dell PC comes in at over 1000 dollars cheaper. Which is more than comparable to the 650 dollar difference of taking the Mac as a benchmark.
Ultimately prices dont compare well because the Macs and PCs are out of sync in their ranges. (Probably on purpose.) Given the price discrepancies I found it would appear PCs are slightly better off but then they also have slightly lower build quality, youd probably do just as well either way depending on what you want. Which is pretty much what you'd expect.
I will, however, point to and agree with his last 'Get involved with the cost analysis' section. Someone may find different better prices and at the end of the day you should always take in every option and make your own judgements.
Yes, of course. It's not obvious how to go about shopping for laptops from Dell. But is that a good thing or bad thing? For the consumer or for Dell? Some people love different options, even if it makes it hard to find the choice you want. Maybe it helps Dell hide what's going on with their pricing.
Personally, i tend to avoid Dell's consumer lineup (Dimension and Inspiron). XPS models are aimed at gamers, and they're decent for that purpose, but probably not the best value otherwise. I my day, real gamers built their own rigs-- it was part of the process, like Jedis building their own lightsabers.... but I digress.
The Precision line are workstations, by which I mean that it's more aimed towards engineers and such rather than home users or gamers. Precision laptops are more like desktop-replacements. Most people, most of the time, (IMHO) should really buy a Latitude for laptops and Optiplex for desktops.
Don't forget that the previous clones made by Motorola/StarMax were total junk and far inferior to Apple's own offerings (I know, I used one for work for several years). They made Apple look bad.
I don't think Apple's about to give up a monopoly on hardware and software just so people can take the OS and run it on crappy hardware that reveals its limitations.
Apple's OS has been easy to maintain because it's only going to run on a few hardware configurations. It doesn't have to run on a million different combinations, like Windows, which is probably one of the biggest reasons for Windows bugs and quirks.
Plus, the OS is the hardware's biggest selling feature -- like the cool OS? Then buy a Mac. Their business model might not seem like it's that ambitious, but it's slow, steady and long-term, and doesn't give up any ground. It forgoes the quick bucks now in the anticipation that five years from now millions more people in the iPod generation will be buying Apple computers and accessories.
Making the accessories PC-compatible is brilliant -- you've gotta admit that while an AirPort station is really just a router in a pretty white box, it's got a lot more sex appeal than the clunky, blinky blocky routers made by other companies. If someone buys Apple accessories for their PC, they will be open to the possibility of eventually getting a Mac someday.
Step 1. Choose the case.
Step 2: Put your junk in that case
Step 3: Get her to open the case
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!
"Evil Empire" seems to be the Apple/Lunix d00dz answer to everytyhing.
Lunix can't compete against Windows 95? It's because MS is an evil empire.
Apple can't release a computer which isn't overpriced more than $1000 compared to a PC? It's because "Microsoft/Dell/Walmart/HP/Toshiba/the little PC repair place around the corner" are all evil empires.
It always falls back to the sociopath's answer to everything: everything is always someone else's fault.
It is a bad thing. People are getting different options but they don't know what the difference between them is.
meh
.....Apple completely controls the entire hardware system, Apple completely controls the software,.......
/. about Dell not wanting to honor *any* hardware warranty if they delivered their hardware with Linux installed. When you buy an Apple product, they DO take responsibility for ALL of it.
Indeed they do and that is absolutely great. Ford builds a complete car, so does Honda and all the other automobile makers. Kenmore makes a whole refrigerator. It includes the compressor that runs it and the thermostat that controls it. If your Kenmore refrigerator breaks you don't go to the compressor maker or complain to the maker of the thermostat. If your Dell computer breaks, they'll first try to blame software for the problem, which it is more often than not and on that grounds try to weasel out on their warranty. There was an article right here on
In what other industry are consumers expected to agree to a multi-page legalese gobbledygook document telling then exactly how they may or may not use the product? Do I get permission from Honda to drive my Accord to Salt Lake City or anyplace else? Do you have to call your TV maker or the broadcast station for permission to watch or 'activate' your refrigerator before it will allow you to put food into it?? I didn't first have to 'activate' my Macbook from Apple. Why did you have to do this with your PC crap? Why is the computer industry allowed to get away with stuff no other industry is? They have sold a bill of goods to the consumers and we have fallen for it, hook line and sinker.
As for monopoly, you've got to be kidding! Since when does less than 10% of a market constitute a monopoly? There nothing that prevents anyone from starting a computer company like Apple which makes a COMPLETE computer, hardware AND software. MS has enough money and has indeed copied Apple in the end to end game computer market. Apple wasn't the first with a portable music player, but they make a product that a lot of people vote for with their wallet. Why? Simple. It works and nobody needs a degree in rocket science to figure out how to make it perform its functions. Apple operates a bit more independently from the rest of computerdom.
All theory is gray
.....Apple do not come close to offering the kind of support that corporate buyers want.......
So What? Right now they are making so much money they couldn't care less if the Bank of America or any other big enterprise doesn't buy their computers. Most of the ossified corporate buyers have not yet figured out that the new Macs are a lot more compatible with their existing Windows infrastructure. Large corporate IT department could be cut down to a third, because of the integrated hardware-software nature of Macs makes for fewer support headaches. What corporate IT boss would recommend Macs to their CEO, knowing full well that such a move would reduce their IT empire and budget by two thirds? There are actually some enterprises and especially education establishments that do use mostly Macs.
Apple has NO financial incentive whatsoever to allow clones again. They do have a number of disincentives. A big one is increased support costs. When a clone customer sees the OSX Apple logo, they'll call Apple to try to get their problem fixed rather than the clone maker. Apple would be subject to the hardware-software blame game that plagues the Windows world. Apple market share is commonly compared to ALL other PC makers. That is bogus. Compare the market share with Dell, HP, Sony and the others. In that light, Apple is doing rather well and their profit margins are better than any of the others.
All theory is gray
Yes. They. Do.
They're *all* either dual-dual-core (for a total of 4 processors), or dual-quad-core (for a total of 8 processors). I have a dual-dual at home (what I'm typing this on, in fact), and a dual-quad at work. The dual-quad smokes my home machine in my neural-network simulations, but it wasn't available when I bought this one.
When I bought it, I was speccing out alternatives. Dell was about $1500 more expensive than the Mac. The parts weren't available to build my own. I'd have been happy running linux on a high-end machine, but in retrospect I'm really happy I got the Mac - OSX is the nicest front-end anyone's ever put on Unix. Loving it.
I'd be interested in seeing this parts-list of yours, just to see where else you'd gone wrong in your pricing...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Blah blah price ubuntu yada yada wank wank.
Only one OS on the planet gives you bash, an awesome gnu toolchain, everything you love about linux including the ability to build most open source with no modification, or using a great package manager like Fink or Macports...while also allowing you to run stuff that doesn't suck. Unlike the Gimp, you can actually run Photoshop. Unlike Ardour, you can actually run Logic. And Final Cut Pro. And lots of other commercial apps that have no viable open source solution.
Unix + Commercial applications, not to mention the awesome Just Works integration between software and hardware, and a rather nice desktop environment. Fucked if I'd bother using anything else, ever. Windows may barely squeak by as a way to launch your browser, but for all the slashdot bullshit cred, no geeks are to be found in these parts. OS X is the ultimate practical geek OS. Apparently people comfortable on a command line don't need to run real apps, and Windows users have no idea how much they are missing without simple tools like grep bundled in, or a nice FTP program. Or SSH. Or a shell, period. It's a joke. A bad joke. A complete shit OS. The free unixes are far from shit, but see point about actually getting work done in the real world that isn't render farms or serving.
Oh, and the Apple development tools are free, and kick ass. Objective C is not half bad, either.
Which leaves exactly one choice. Price is irrelevant. Apple threw everything out, bravely. Vista is 7 years later, and just as clunky a mess as ever.
But will a PC tower fit in my entertainment center, where it serves as a wireless router (the Atheros chipset is capable of being a WAP), file server, web server, torrent downloader, CVS/SVN repository, game center (NES, SNES, Arcade, PSX etc emulators), DVD player, and jukebox while taking up less space than a single one of any of the (applicably separate) items listed above?
I don't know if you can do all that with OSX, but I'm doing it all with my mini running Ubuntu, and I'm pretty dang pleased. It's completely silent, takes up next to no space, and does all of the above without complaint. I'm no mac fan, heck I don't even use my completely legit license to OSX that came with the thing, but when I tried to find small form-factor PCs that could do what the mini can, I either found big clunky wannabes or alternatives that were equal but even more expensive than the mini.
Your point was very valid in reference to general desktop use, but there are fringe cases like mine for which I haven't been able to find anything close to the mini. I'm not saying it's everyone's miracle cure, but I AM saying there are certain arenas where you can't compete with it by any means, and I tried.
They're just not less expensive. Nothing in this article contradicts that.
-- I speak only for myself
This is complete rubbish. You seem to be of the opinion that being 'optimal' is important to him.
Hint. I don't think his ego is in any way determined by his processor core.
I live in a giant bucket.
...and never will be that name brand PCs are cheaper than Macs. When you factor in life of product costs, because Apple make the whole widget, there's not the pressure to spend on as many software upgrades, either, and in my experience they retain a degree of competitive usability for longer than PCs in given tasks. I use a Mac at home for music making and a PC at work for editing spoken word audio, and my 3 year old laptop blows the 1 year old PC desktop at work into the weeds for power and performance. The PC probably didn't cost my employer what it would have cost me to buy, but I would have spent as much on buying that model as I did on buying the iBook. It's sad, really, because common sense says there should be no difference.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
The pentium FPU was much faster than the 486DX FPU. Code that involved any kind of FP math would be a lot faster on a pentium at a lower clock rate than a 486DX at a higher clock rate. A good example of code that ran much faster on a pentium 66 v. a 486DX4 would be the original Quake. The hand tuned assembly rasterizer relied on the characteristics of the pentium architecture and bogged down on a 486.
AMD and Cyrix both made 120 Mhz 486s. Cyrix's model was their own design and was fairly slow. AMD's model was based on licenses from Intel and at the same clock rate performed the same.
Nope, I from his post I obviously DON'T believe "that being 'optimal' is important to him."
I was simply replying to the fact that he/she seemed to believe that the best computer was the most expensive, and the price told you how good a computer is.
The fact remains that this is a poor way to buy a PC, and even more so a notebook. If he found a good site, or had a good friend the appropriate questions would be asked. (Is this ever going to be used for games, are photos going to be stored or videos going to be ripped,is it a media center...etc.)
By asking these questions he could get a processor or storage or GPU that can meet his needs(the processor was only an example)
If he does not "Game" the most expensive E-machines PC (or whatever) is not likely any better than the one two price points lower. A thousand dollars worth of SLI'd video cards don't do any good in Photoshop.
My ego is not determined by my core either, but as a IT professional, I should be able to quickly absorb enough information to make a judgement call on more than price, or know someone that can. (And even if I don't really care about my processor, Visual Studio sure does! lol)
>If he does not "Game" the most expensive E-machines PC (or whatever) is not likely any better than the one two price points lower
/is/ possible that I might be able to get away with buying a machine one or two price points lower, why bother? Why bother checking out all the exacting details to save maybe $500 for a PC I'm going to keep for 5 years or more?
I do "game". And while it
>If he found a good site, or had a good friend the appropriate questions would be asked.
>(Is this ever going to be used for games, are photos going to be stored or videos going to be ripped,is
>it a media center...etc.)
Or....just buy the baddest machine available and be relatively assured that you can do anything you want to.
Look, it's just not that big a deal to me. I think it comes down to money. When I was a kid I used to pore over Computer Shopper, eaking out all the details and agonizing over how to get the absolute best for the least amount of money. Now a thousand dollars just isn't that big of a deal to me when I go to buy a PC every few years. And the bottom line is, the more expensive it is, usually, the better it is. Since the most expensive PC in Best Buy doesn't strain my pocket book, I don't have to do any work at all to make a good choice.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
This must be a recent addition. Last year we bought a ton of Macbooks and a few MacBook Pros. The option was not available. I even called the Apple sales rep for my company and he confirmed that the option was coming, but not available.
Glad to see they added it.
-ted
I have beaten this thread to death, so this is my last post.
The "gamer" who benefits from Dual video cards is NOT the gamer who keeps the PC for 5 years. Only the hard core gamer could properly appreciate dual or Quad SLI cards, and those guys ONLY keep the PC for a Year, and a couple I know don't even keep it that long.
And thanks for confirming that you have plenty of money (an extra thousand is not a big deal), unfortuneately most people out there are not in your situation so it is still important for them to get a good deal on what they need. (Most people keep themselves a couple of months from bankrupcy--not a smart idea)
As an aside, the extra thousand you are willing to spend is enough for me to build 2 computers with dual core processors and 2 gigs of ram each, and a nice case and PS. I would even rather take those PC's and give them to kids who need them (parent died, and the family a little short on cash etc.) than have it depreciate in my computer room without being really used, but that is just me. (btw, those two PC's would be able to even play BattleField 2)
>The "gamer" who benefits from Dual video cards is NOT the gamer who keeps the PC for 5 years.
>Only the hard core gamer could properly appreciate dual or Quad SLI cards, and those guys
>ONLY keep the PC for a Year, and a couple I know don't even keep it that long.
I don't know why "Dual video cards" keeps coming up in this thread. I've never had that kind of setup, and I don't think I've ever seen a PC on the shelf at Best Buy configured that way.
>And thanks for confirming that you have plenty of money (an extra thousand is not a big deal),
>unfortuneately most people out there are not in your situation so it is still important for them to get a
>good deal on what they need.
No doubt. But my purchasing methodology works just as well - they just stop at a different price point than I do. My point is not that you have to buy the _most_expensive_ PC, just that you won't go far off the mark buying the most expensive PC _that_you_can_afford_. You just walk down the isle going, "$1000...no, $799...no, $599...OK".
Now if you really, really want to bargain shop and possibly build your own machine even, yes, you can spend the time to figure out the difference between an Intel and an AMD, a Pentium M vs. a Pentium D, or an Operton vs. an Itanium, or whatever. But there is _no_way_ever that a user like my mother is _ever_ going to do something like that. Not ever.
They are going to walk into Walmart, or BestBuy, or whatever, and shop on price. Why? Because, like I originally said, it is very difficult to figure out the technical details of what makes one product superior to another. Most user do not have a clue, and some, like myself who do, no longer care to be bothered figuring it out and fortunately have the financial wherewithal to enjoy that luxury.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
So I went to Best Buy's web site, and decided to do a little digging around, say I wanted to try and figure out what the different hardware configurations were all about.
p up/index.htm
/love/ to sit down like I did in the old days and ponder all this stuff and figure out all the whoosits and whatsits and trick up the ultimate custom system my pocketbook will allow. But it's just too damn complicated. I've got too many other things to worry about. It is easier and generally accurate to simply shop on price. The more expensive it is, the more likely it is to be better than the less expensive ones.
So I found this little gem:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/po
It lets you compare processors.
Just on this one page, there are 16 different processor choices.
Then you click on one.
You get lots of technical mumbo-jumbo. Architecture (65nm? Is that good?). Cache (more is usually better). Clock Speed (Is faster better? These days not always...). Front Side Bus (As opposed to the short bus?). Quad-core? Dual Core? Intel VT? Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology? Execute Disable Bit?
Come on. You expect people to make sense of any of this?
Look I'd
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I agree about the AnandTech guides. You are on the money.
The advice about Laptops is a bit simplistic. The only Intel Laptop processor that dominates is the Core 2 duo. The Pentium, celeron laptops that I still see are often not a good choice, and the dual core AMD Turions are overall as good or better than the respectable Core Duo's. (depends if you are ever going to run 64 bits etc.)
Oooo, good catch - Pentium and Celeron laptops are not usually a good choice unless you are simply short on desk space and want a desktop replacement. Core Duo's still run a bit cooler and use less power than the AMD Turions, though, right?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You are right, as a rule Core Duo's do use a bit less power than the Turions, BUT, once you take into account that the memory controller is built into the Turion, it is usually a wash. (of course this varies from model to model)
Myth? How ignorant. For something to be a myth, it must be invented/imaginary/unproven.
The historical price difference between Macs and PCs is NONE of those.
Whether or not you believe a PC is cheaper now is irrelevant...it doesn't automatically turn a historic FACT into a "myth".
Perhaps "present day stigma" is the phrase you were looking for.
The last post mumbled something about user error.
Did you trace through the post to see if there were possibly some botch on apple's part that made the locale issue hard for the user to deal with?
(Living in Japan, I happen to know first hand what locale issues can do to an app.)
It could be a bug. That is, I'm not interested enough in checking a cold thread on youtube or whatever that was to see whether it's a bug in the handling of (the French?) locale by the UI.
It is not, at any rate, a math bug, which is what you seem to be thinking.
Discordantus missed the divide by two point. You're still missing it. If a Mac OS X box's math libraries gave the result you initially gave as an example, I don't think it would boot.