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."
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!!!!
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?
You can find a biege box?! OMG! Why isn't this on the front page of Slashdot? These days I have to settle for black cases and get rid of all the neon LED enhancement crap so it doesn't glow in the dark.
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.
The entry level MacBook is $1,099. To get a 13.3" laptop with 2.0GHZ C2D, 1GB RAM and 80GB HDD from System 76, I have to shell out $1,414, and that can't run Mac OS X (choice is a good thing, right?).
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.
You haven't been keeping up. Notebooks are growing at a faster rate than desktop sales, and have already overtaken them in retail:l l+desktops/2100-1047_3-5731417.html
http://news.com.com/PC+milestone--notebooks+outse
GPL Deconstructed
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..
The comparison is not bogus, the author explicitly stated he was comparing Macs to brand name PCs. Home built PCs being cheaper doesn't disprove his assertion. Your same home built PC is cheaper than brand name PCs too.
He also states that if your needed specs fall outside of what Apple offers, you will get a better deal on a PC. Needing to build it yourself definitely falls outside of Apple's offerings. However, if you need to buy a mid-high end brand name box, then his point is valid. And he clearly states this criteria in the article.
He does not have to be wrong about Apple vs. Dell, for you to be right about DIY vs. Dell.
That'd be a great argument, if Macs came with the same hardware choice as you get with non-Apple PCs. As it is, Apple hardware is limited, they have greater lead-times in rolling out new devices (WUXGA screens and 7200rpm 160GB disks on notebooks are a GREAT example, not to mention the choice of graphics cards, the new Turbo Memory thing from Intel, etc. etc.). They're not even comparable. And as for your trolling about spyware and popups, those are not even a problem for most people. And if they want to play games, then there is really no choice, no matter how great Parallels is, it's still not the same as running the OS on the machine itself. "Boot camp!" I hear you cry, well, then you've got to shell out for Windows on top of the price of the Mac, and hope it delivers drivers suitable to use your hardware.
;)
- If you're not wanting to spend top-dollar, non-Apple PCs are far cheaper.
- There *are* fewer applications for Apple computers, which is to be expected as they don't command the market-share of, say, Windows
- They are *different* to use, and if you're used to Windows, that means you have a learning curve to climb, which implies work just to use the computer
- See above
- They do use one-button mice, on the notebooks at least, and the "mighty mouse" is not exactly a two-buttoned mouse if you keep a finger on the right mouse button. Again, something you have to get used to. Or you can buy another mouse, again, more money.
- Apple computers are just as secure as everything else on the market if used properly. Apple doesn't have a magic bullet against trojan horses, it just isn't that big of a target for hackers. As the market share grows, that will become a problem.
Ignorance IS bliss, my friend. You've just demonstrated the other side of the coin
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).
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.
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.
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
Both VMWare Fusion AND Parallels have 3D acceleration in the latest version. I just did a benchmark between my Dell work laptop and both virtualizations. The dell is a 1.83GHz and my MacBook Pro is 2.00 Ghz. Both virtualizations were faster than the Dell. "But the Dell is slower" you cry, show me one game that will run amazingly well on a 2.00GHz and like a dog on a 1.83GHz. Most games were designed for processors slower than that anyway. If you are on the most cutting edge of gaming, I doubt that any laptop, other than the custom Alienware, is going to be fast enough for you anyways.
hope it delivers drivers suitable to use your hardware.
The thing is, Apple controls the hardware. I tried out boot camp (and went back to virtualization), Apple's drivers for Windows XP were much better than Dell's drivers for their laptops. iSight, 2 fingered scrolling, battery control. Windows worked better on my Mac than it did on my Dell prior to it. - There *are* fewer applications for Apple computers, which is to be expected as they don't command the market-share of, say, Windows
Yes, there are fewer, but I would argue that they are higher quality. How many programs do you need to keep track of recipes? Windows probably has a few dozen programs. Version tracker & Mac Update list 3 for Mac that absolutely rock. They're designed differently, one lets you drag and drop recipies into a calender, each has different features that I could see appealing to different types of people. However they're all exceptionally well made, the UI in all of them is beautiful. The same goes for almost every piece of software I use. How many DVD Ripping programs do I need? MacTheRipper does it all. How about VIDEO_TS to DVD.iso? DVD Imager does just fine. I'd rather have 5 programs to do X where 3 are amazing to use than 100 programs to do X where 3 are amazing to use.
- They do use one-button mice, on the notebooks at least, and the "mighty mouse" is not exactly a two-buttoned mouse if you keep a finger on the right mouse button. Again, something you have to get used to. Or you can buy another mouse, again, more money.
Where does this damn argument keep coming from? Yes there is only 1 button. But there are 3 ways to active a right click. I have my preference and other people have theirs. You can:
- Apple computers are just as secure as everything else on the market if used properly. Apple doesn't have a magic bullet against trojan horses, it just isn't that big of a target for hackers. As the market share grows, that will become a problem. Just like Apache is a bigger target than IIS and has so many more virii for it.
Not to flame, but have you worked in any business? The larger a business is the less likely they are to have anything home built. They are also less likely to start messing with their hardware in any significant fashion. Over the years working in big business I've seen RAM added to servers and HDs replaced when they failed in arrays. The last thing any of the techs want to deal with are randomly built DIY machines.
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'
>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.
The question of 'brand name', though, is misleading when it comes to laptops, because there are only a few ODM (Original Design Manufacturers) who actually make laptops, selling them to companies that rebrand them under their own logo and sell them. For example, when I bought my laptop, the ODM design was the D900K, manufactured by Clevo (dual-core Athlon laptop). The actual laptop is branded ProStar; however, the D900K was also being sold by other brands, such as Sager and Alienware, who offered the D900K as the Aurora m7700 -- for a price, configured identically to the ProStar model I bought, that was $700 higher; all I would have gotten for that $700 was the Alienware name and a blue plastic Alienware-style case top. So comparisons against a 'brand name' PC laptop are not always indicative of anything except the price you pay for the brand name
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
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...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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...
So you're telling me that the context menu that pops up when I click the right button on the (Microsoft) mouse plugged into my Mac mini is a figment of my imagination? How much more support is needed than that?
I suppose if I had a MacBook (or whatever), lack of a right button on the trackpad would be a minor annoyance, but I rarely use the trackpads on my notebooks anyway. With the one that gets lugged around, I haul a Bluetooth mouse around with it.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
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.
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
> 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
Antec offers nice simple cases and gaudy ones. My current case is rolled steel and aluminum. Simple and clean. Not a beige box, but it doesn't have landing lights either.
...
:-)
If you insulate the plug for the landing lights from the plug that the power comes from by about a half inch of, well, anything, you can avoid the landing lights. Though I do hate having danglies on my computer. F-ing danglies. I had a Sonata, and it made me so very happy except for those danglies for that stupid double-barrel blue spotlight on the front. I'm much more a fan of their utilitarian series, which in prime utilitarian fashion, has no stupid giant lights.
And now I have a P180, which while not fulfilling my life completely, comes very close. I defy any Mac user to sincerely argue that you can actually say that a Mac Pro is better looking than a P180. But I suppose half of them clicked the probably Reply button before reading this sentence. I guess the Mac Pro case would probably cost a lot more if you purchased it separately. Oh, man... [offtopic] I just had a great idea. Someone needs to call Apple and tell them that your case broke, and you need a replacement part, lol. I would love to have a Mac Pro case. Despite what I said about the P180
[/offtopic]
APPLE SUPPORT: Thank you for calling Apple. How may I assist you today?
ME: My case broke, and I need a replacement part, lol.
AS: What?
ME: I said my case broke, and I need a replacement part, lol.
AS:
Maybe I can affect this whole thread with fake tags:
[/offtopic]
Please stop stalking me, bro.
On the other hand, most consumers don't care. They just want a computer. - If you're not wanting to spend top-dollar, non-Apple PCs are far cheaper. You're right. Most people who make this argument compare against Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. Other big name and big brand companies. Which, I suppose, is a fair comparison. But the reality is you can find computers cheaper than these guys through the thousands of other small-fry companies. It takes some time, effort, knowledge, and comparison shopping but you can get just the right computer at just the right price.
Or, if you'd rather spend time doing other things, you can get a Mac. - There *are* fewer applications for Apple computers, which is to be expected as they don't command the market-share of, say, Windows Again, you're right. But it depends what you want to do.
As a long-time Mac user, where I've run into the "Oh, I can't find an app to do that" is in external hardware support. I want my Mac to talk to this device but the guy who makes the device doesn't support the Mac. My favorite example? I got a car several years ago with a diagnostic connector. I was thinking this would be a cool thing to hook up to my Mac and read the information about how my engine is performing, etc. There was a package that would do that, but it's Windows-only.
So, yup. If I want to tune my car, you're right. I'm SOL with a Mac. For the other 99.997% of humanity, this isn't a big deal.
I'd also point out the "brand name" issue. If you want to run AutoCAD, you need Windows. If you want to do CAD, there are plenty of applications that run on the Mac. So if AutoCAD is what you need, you need Windows. If you're using a Mac, you'll have to invest some time, effort, knowledge, and comparison shopping to get just the right application.
Hm. That sounds familiar. - They are *different* to use, and if you're used to Windows, that means you have a learning curve to climb, which implies work just to use the computer Okay, now you're stretching. "I don't think I'll buy that Lexus because the controls are different from my Honda and I might have to work to figure out how to turn on the cruise control." - They do use one-button mice, on the notebooks at least, and the "mighty mouse" is not exactly a two-buttoned mouse if you keep a finger on the right mouse button. Again, something you have to get used to. Or you can buy another mouse, again, more money. You're really being a whiner on this one. First, see above. Second, buy another mouse if it bothers you that much. My god, it's more money. I just found a five-button USB mouse for $5.06. You're really gonna bitch about an extra $5? - Apple computers are just as secure as everything else on the market if used properly. Apple doesn't have a magic bullet against trojan horses, it just isn't that big of a target for hackers. Well, this one I'll sort of agree on. You're right--if the user says, "Hey! Install Spyware on my computer!" there's not much that can be done. Social engineering attacks are tough to combat for just that reason--the person wants to get infected.
About the only advantage you have on the Mac is that it will at least jump up and say, "Please authenticate" so it's a little more obvious that somebody wants to do something. "Gee, why should I have to authenticate in order to read this greeting card that somebody sent me?" It's not much help, granted, but at least it's something and it doesn't pop-up nearly as often as UAC does under Vista.
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.
Actually, I think that helps it a lot. Most of the people I know who bought one bought it because they were tickled that it was a real computer in such a "cute" package.
*sigh* back to work...
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.
"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.
I agree with this, however I've found that the quality of the applications and consistency of user interfaces is far superior to Windows.
I'd say that Macs and PCs have a similar number of *good* applications.
And I've yet to find a text editor on any platform that can compare to TextMate.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
The fact that it looks like a modern piece of electronics that will fit unobtrusively in tight places, rather than looking like a big clunky piece of office machinery in your home, does help.
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.
Of course they are. I spent a lot of time comparing the two when I recently replaced my music/video workstation. There's just no comparison. It would have cost me very nearly twice as much to go with Apple for the very same hardware, even if Apple had a configuration that fit my needs. And that's before even beginning to buy software. I use an expensive professional PCI audio interface that fits my needs precisely, so the Mac Pro was the only Apple product I could have chosen.
I would very much have liked to be using Logic Pro on a Mac Pro. It's what I learned on, and I enjoy the Mac interface, but not enough to go the extra price. But I'm running Sonar on a PC that has almost exactly the same specs as the Mac Pro and I came in at more than $1400 below the Apple system. Oh, and I also like using the DXi plugins, so that limited me to Windows. I could have found VST or RTAS equivalents, but I have a large investment in DXi gizmos.
I got 2 bucks worth of hope in the form of a couple of Lotto tickets sitting in my wallet. If I hit the number, I promise I'll switch to the Mac Pro, Logic Pro setup right away. But I'll keep the PC to run some virtual instruments and connect them via optical SPDIF. It might suprise the serious Mac fans, but I am able to be productive (and creative) on my PC.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's exactly what I did with my works Dell Inspiron Dual Core (well I shrunk the XP Pro partition). I made space and put Ubuntu on it. Wifi has never worked on it neither has the built in modem. If I need either I have to reboot in to XP. I had to install a utility to get the integrated graphics to work with any kind of acceleration. Other people with the machine ended running a VM to run Linux within XP. I had to rebuild and patch the kernel to get my client's VPN to work. All very user friendly. Not!
I have the machine because I was given it for work and because I have a *N*X project which has scripts in it that are not BSD friendly. The battery lasts about a couple of hours. Tomorrow I fly from the UK to La La Land on one of my regular jaunts there. The works Dell is being wrapped in clothing and put in my case and going through the hold. My 2 year old iBook is going in my hand luggage because the battery lasts long enough for what I need over the 18 hour trip, it's small, it's light and I can run everything I need on it (except that build).
Towards the end of the year I will upgrade to a Mac Book Pro and run both XP and Linux in VMs. 95% of work will be done in OS-X.
Sorry but when Linux is consumer friendly I'll use it full time but that's not the case now and I cost far too much to spend development and consultancy time googling for fixes, patching kernels and recompiling on my development machine.
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.
Unfortunately, I needed a dual-core 2GB system with a 160GB HD in it and a 15" wide screen, sub 6# weight, and sturdy frame w/ wireless G, Bluetooth, FW400/800, and USB 2.0 hi-speed support. Dang, Dell comes in at $3K for that, and fails to meet the FW and weight limits, never mind the battery life.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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**
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Priced maybe, but feature wise it's not even close. http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product
If we upgrade the mini to match the stats of that HP (gig of ram, 250 gig harddrive, dvd burner) well, we can't even match them, but we get close.. we're still stuck with a worse video card and only 180 gig harddrive.. but it still costs twice as much! $1074 for the closely equipped mini, compared to $549 for the HP.
Maybe you think the athlon64 x2 isn't as good as a core 2 duo.. that's ok, upgrading the PC to a core 2 duo makes it $669. Still cheaper, and the harddrive is even bigger.
Apple doesn't compete in the sub-$1000 range.. the mini is underpowered compared to PCs in the same price range.
...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.
.. What did I get after about 30 minutes of looking? I couldn't even *find* a 2.4ghz machine in Dell, Lenovo, Compaq/HP, Toshiba, let alone the rest of the hardware. So he was right -- for high end stuff. Many (probably most) will simply not buy it because they don't perceive the need for it (they complain, SURPRISE, about the price!)
Mac Mini
$599
1.66GHz Core Duo
512mb RAM
60gb SATA
DVD Combo Drive (24x)
Intel GMA 950 IGP
No mouse/keyboard!
No monitor
No modem
Dell Dimension E521
$529
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+
1gb Dual Channel DDR2 @ 667MHz
160gb SATA @ 7200RPM
DVD Combo Drive (48x CD-RW)
nVidia GeForce 6150 LE IGP
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical Mouse
15" Analog Flat Panel
56k Modem
This is why people think Apple is more expensive than, well, any other PC. If you want to keep the processor the same, there is a Dell in the same price range. To add a display from the "customize" page of the mini, you ONLY have a 20" or 23" FP available as a choice (at $599 and $899). Looking at their store, they don't seem to OFFER a 15", 17", or even 19" screen. That is ridiculous. That is why people complain about Apple hardware prices.
I agree with what the article says about the higher-end laptop prices. I thought, when I first read what was in the article "Psssshh.. What a bunch of bull. There has to be several that are very similar in both hardware specs and prices..."
For kicks and giggles, I tried to find another "desktop" that would match the price of the Dell I quoted above. Nothing. Closest you'll get is the 17" iMac, which is at 1.83GHz Cor 2 Duo, 160gb HDD, the same 24x "combo drive", and the same video. At $999!
For more kicks and giggles, I decided to also take on the "Mac Pro". At $2499 (I upgraded the ram to 2gb instead of 1gb because I got a good combo deal on a mainboard/2gb RAM -- everything else was stock), putting parts together on NewEgg (sorted by "best rating", not "lowest price", I came up with a similar system, though with only 4 memory slots instead of 8, for $1000.43 (that includes 3 day UPS shipping). Yes, you are reading that correctly. $1500 LESS than the Apple, for essentially the same machine. Newegg didn't have a LGA775 board with 8 slots, though I very much doubt the difference between the one I selected and an 8-slotter would be $1500. It also wasn't a dual-cpu board, but again, there won't be a $1500 price difference. I just realized I didn't add in an OS. If you want to keep the price down, use what you had or linux. Or add $89.99 for XP Home. Still substantially less than the "Mac Pro".
So, overall, I'm going to stick with the "Apple hardware is overpriced compared to PC's!" line, because for the most part, they are.
Is the price difference as HUGE today as it was "back in the day"? No. Is it there? Most definitely.
Incidentally, I saved the part list for the "Mac Pro" counterpart. If anyone would like to see it, contact me at m i k e at s i n e p d o t g o t d n s d o t c o m (Yes, it is a real domain, and yes, the address works -- it's hosted via Google's mail for domains hosting). Realize, though, that I use it for spam catching, mostly, so if you just decide to sign me up for crap, you aren't really going to hurt me. I do check the address each day, so if you really want to see the parts I chose, feel free to email me.
bork bork bork!
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...
Step 3: Get her to open the case
P.S. Do not put your junk in the case through the power supply fan while it's on.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If that's a problem for you, install bootcamp.
your right that the Mac mini is like over a year old with no updates or price changes and is way overpriced... but thats it. Your comments on the Mac Pro show you do not know much about "workstation" level hardware... you even admit it wasn't a dual socket board you used...Which means you didnt even price how much a Xeon system would cost.
Sure you can build a highly specific machine that meets your individual needs usually cheaper than buying a pre-made system... but thats about all you proved pricing out your parts at newegg... nothing to do with Apple. The Mac Pro is even cheaper than Dell workstations with similiar configuration.
People get upset about Apple being "overpriced" not because they are, but because they simply do not understand that Apple has no want to compete in all areas of the market. They take Apple machines focused at a different area of the market and try to fit it into their comparisons. Apple really doesn't want everyones business... if you want to custom build a machine with the exact parts you want... you know what... Apple does NOT want your business at all...
Macs are PCs!
Apple's marketing will never change that. Why are you people so easily swayed by marketing?
your right that the Mac mini is like over a year old with no updates or price changes and is way overpriced... but thats it. Your comments on the Mac Pro show you do not know much about "workstation" level hardware... you even admit it wasn't a dual socket board you used...Which means you didnt even price how much a Xeon system would cost.
Strike 1
The mini received it's updates when the announcement of the switch to Intel came out. Now, whether this was a year ago or not, doesn't matter. What matters is that it has, in fact, had an update.
Sure you can build a highly specific machine that meets your individual needs usually cheaper than buying a pre-made system... but thats about all you proved pricing out your parts at newegg... nothing to do with Apple. The Mac Pro is even cheaper than Dell workstations with similiar configuration.
Strike 2
Nice of you to sling your crap around without actually having seen the parts I selected. Seagate HDD (one of the most expensive of the brands), Thermaltake 600w PS with cable management (bet the Apple doesn't have that!), the same Xeon, a nice case (it was a case that even had sound dampening material in it), a nice Microsoft keyboard and optical mouse (not the most expensive, by far, but still nice), a SATA CD-ROM that was *faster* than listed in the Apple specs. I even chose a 7300gt with the same 256mb RAM.
No.. no.. don't go by what I actually chose. Just pick the part where I said Newegg didn't have the same mainboard, so I chose one as close to what was in the Apple machine as possible, and then decide that everything else I chose was substandard crap (hell, the mainboard was an Asus! Hardly crap... It was also one of the most expensive boards in the catagory (if not the most expensive)).
Looking back, I did spec the wrong processor when I was pricing my machine (I didn't notice that it specified a "woodcrest" core, so I chose the first 2.66ghz I saw in the "Xeon" list). More about that below...
As I said, feel free to email me with the parts list request. I'll gladly send it along.
People get upset about Apple being "overpriced" not because they are, but because they simply do not understand that Apple has no want to compete in all areas of the market. They take Apple machines focused at a different area of the market and try to fit it into their comparisons. Apple really doesn't want everyones business... if you want to custom build a machine with the exact parts you want... you know what... Apple does NOT want your business at all...
Strike 3, you're out!
FUD. Period. I speced out a "Mac Pro", but with 'PC parts', and it came in $1500 LESS than the lowest end Apple Mac Pro. Yes, it didn't have a "server class" mainboard, but those are not $1500, my fiend. Not even close. I just got to looking at the Apple web site and saw they are listing a "woodcrest" processor, so I went back to my list and noticed I did not choose a Woodcrest. Ok. I find the *exact* processor. $713 from Newegg. Newegg doesn't carry any socket 771 boards (that I could find in their "advanced list" of category selections. I go to Tyan's web site, find an 8 ddr2 socket havin', 2 cpu socket sportin' board. Search google for it's model number (Tempest i5000PX), and choose the first link (so I could probably have gotten a better deal if I looked). Find the board for $426 at superwarehouse.com. That is $1138.99. That fits in the price difference between what I spec'ed and Apple's price! That doesn't even include me REMOVING the processor and board I chose in the first place. That means I'm *still* $300-ish cheaper than the Mac Pro!
You Fail It!
bork bork bork!
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...
Mac Pro's don't have PCI, you would have to get a G5.
What the grandparent is trying to say is that you didn't actually list the hardware specifications. There is more than one model of Mac Pro, and I for one seriously doubt that you could undercut one at the same price, unless you build it yourself, and then that would be for perhaps a couple of hundred dollars. I know this because I have played the hardware spec game of Apple vs. PC for more than ten years, and since the G4, the only significant difference in hardware has been the processor. Now with the Intels, I'd have to say that by claiming a $1400 savings, you're blowing smoke. Unless you went with a completely different mid-range, single-core processor vs. the four-core offerings Apple currently has. Also, the PCI vs. the PCIe motherboard will also mean a significant price difference (not to mention it's hard to find video cards for it.) But at that point, the machine is already nothing like the Mac Pro and the comparison fails.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
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?
There are drivers for many, many graphics chips on the Mac. The cards themselves are different. You can actually MOD an AGP graphics card from a PC to work on a Mac. Does it take different drivers? No, those are already included with the OS. Modding a PC card for Apple use involves reflashing the BIOS, possibly desoldering and moving a few resistors, and for certain older Macs, either severing the connection to a few pins on the AGP connector or putting tape across them (see below for reason). You're crazy if you think you're going to convince me that all that comes down to drivers (especially when the modded card uses the exact same drivers as the Mac version of said card would use after you finish with it).
If you plug an AGP 8X card into and older mac it won't even POWER ON. Why? Because Apple decided to take a few "reserved for future use" pins noted in the AGP spec and do something else with them.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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"
i double checked newegg.com. so yes, ONE 2.66ghz woodcrest xeon is $713.00. soooo... multiply that by two and we have $1426.00 already and that doesn't include the motherboard, FB-DIMM RAM, hard drive, case, cooling, etc. etc. etc. even with just the processors alone it is not a $1500 difference.
so, pray tell, how did you get $1000.43?
groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.