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."

Comments

No competition on the low end

[traindirector]

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.

Re:No competition on the low end

[rvw]

Hello?

Hello, is it me you're looking for?
I can see it in your eyes
I can see it in your smile
You're all I've ever wanted
My arms are open wide
Cos you know just what to say
And you know just what to do
And I want to tell you so much, I love you

Re:No competition on the low end

[sacrilicious]

When I say "Macs cost more than PCs" what I actually mean to say is that "Apple isn't in the low end market". Of course, everyone I say the former to understands that I mean the later, except the Apple advocates.

I think they (or anyone) could be forgiven for not understanding what you mean. If I can buy 1 pound of sugar for $1 at Safeway, or 100 pounds of sugar for $2 at Costco, and a friend asked me whether Safeway or Costco had cheaper sugar, it'd be negligent+misleading of me to simply answer "Safeway".

Re:No competition on the low end

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

Can't say I'm surprised, a Mac user is exactly the kind of person who would bring a sword to a gun fight.

The Mac guy would still win because the PC guy would be too distracted bragging about how cheap his gun is.

Re:No competition on the low end

[dcclark]

Almost every time one of my non-tech savvy friends is looking for a laptop, I ask if they've looked at Macs. I then, without fail, hear "Macs are more expensive than PC's", and after a few questions, it always turns out that what they have actually found is, "I was looking for cheap laptops, and Apple doesn't make anything in the $500-$1000 range". But, that's not the end of the story. Most of my non-tech savvy friends interpret Apple's low-end laptops ($1100) as being equivalent to a low-end PC laptop ($600). Thus, they think that Macs really do cost $500 more than equivalent PC laptops. 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.

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.

Re:No competition on the low end

[Frankie70]

Absolutely right.

1) Dell Dimension C521 - 359 Dollars

AMD Sempron 3400
Windows Vista Home Basic
512MB SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA Drive
48X CD-RW/ DVD Combo Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 6150 LE Integrated Graphics GPU
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell USB Keyboard and Dell 2-button Scroll Mouse
56K PCI Data Fax Modem

2) Mac Mini 599 Dollars

1.66 GHz Intel Core Duo
512MB SDRAM
60GB Serial ATA drive
Mac OS X
Intel GMA 950 graphics
No Keyboard, No Monitor

Re:No competition on the low end

[QuantumG]

Was there any need for a retarded analogy? What's hard to understand here? PCs are available for less money than Macs.. that's what *everyone* means when they say something is cheaper than something else. The only people who do a "gee, if I buy the top end model I can get it cheaper from Apple" are people who are trying to justify paying more for a PC. Shit, the low end machines have more grunt than any normal person requires anyway.. there's simply no justification for buying a high end machine unless you are doing something more than word processing and surfing the web.

Re:No competition on the low end

[MoxFulder]

Actually, Apple competes with their Mac Mini. ($599 and up)

Um... are you kidding me?? For $430, Dell will sell you an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (smokes the Mac Mini's core solo), with twice the RAM, twice the HD, and a 19" monitor included: http://edealinfo.com/dealsearch/Controller.php

Oh, and it's easily upgradable. If having a tiny brick-sized computer is what you want, get a Mac Mini--though I'd prefer an HP Slimline, personally--but don't pretend that the Mac Mini is actually a good value at the low end.

Re:No competition on the low end

[MyOtherUIDis3digits]

Mod me to hell, but I gotta say it:

And by the time he gets through all the "You have turned the safety off - Cancel or Allow?", "You have pulled the trigger - Cancel or Allow?" BS he will be bleeding profusely from several puncture and slash wounds.

That, or it just explodes and blows his frickin hand off.

Re:No competition on the low end

[Achromatic1978]

Compare what you get in that to the $599 or $799 Dell, HP, etc. I think you'll be very surprised with what Apple is able to provide at that price point, especially when you factor in the tiny form factor the machine has.

Let's do just that. For $800, from Dell, I can get:

Dell Dimension E520, C2D 1.8GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB SATA 7200rpm, 16x DVDRW, Intel GMA X3000, Firewire. Oh, and this little handy thing, too: a 17" LCD that doesn't come with the Apple below:
Apple Mac Mini, $799 edition. C2D 1.83GHz, 512MB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, 8x DVDRW, Intel GMA 950, Firewire. No display.

Come on, even you would have to confess it's not much of a comparison. The only winning point to the Mac Mini in this case is "small form factor". It loses on every other.

Re:No competition on the low end

[plover]

Yes, but your non-tech savvy friends who are in the market for $500-$1000 laptops are there because they can't tell the difference. They most likely use them for web browsing, word processing, email, spreadsheets, slide shows and the occasional game of solitaire. For people like that, price is the single most important factor. For that kind of user an $1100 machine is $600 of waste if a $500 machine can do the same job, regardless of whether it's a PC or a Mac.

If you were to explain Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) to them, how they won't have virus and worm problems and porno-popups, and will have fewer updates, and how everything typically just works better together, they might be more inclined to consider a Mac. But really, purchase price is most likely going to remain their most important focus.

Re:No competition on the low end

[Yaztromo]

Um... are you kidding me?? For $430, Dell will sell you an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (smokes the Mac Mini's core solo)

Apple hasn't sold a mini with a Core Solo in nearly a year. They're all Core Duos these days.

Please get with the times.

Yaz.

Re:No competition on the low end

[rcamera]

i thought the porno-popups were an added bonus of running windows... you make it sound like an unwanted behavior.

Re:No competition on the low end

[Ahruman]

"Don't forget to remind them that (unless they also buy Windows) the only software they'll ever get to use is whatever it comes with out of the box"

No, no, no. That's the willfully ignorant jibe for the iPhone, not Macs.

Re:No competition on the low end

[bill_mcgonigle]

So you're saying that 100 Macs cost only twice as much as a single PC?

Only if you figure in the support costs.

Re:No competition on the low end

[jmorris42]

> So you're going to suggest the "low end" Mac to your web-surfing, pr0n-hording friends why?

I don't know about the original poster, you are right about him probably being a hopeless fanboi. But I also recommend Macs and I'm a Linux bigot. Why? There is method in my madness!

First lets be blunt a bout what it means when a friend/family asks me to recommend a machine. What they are really asking me to to is become their support person for life. Any geek who knows me well enough to be asking for advice will probably be ready for the Penguin, at least a dual boot. But for the rest I recommend they buy a Mac. Were they to actually do that I wouldn't mind providing them with support because they wouldn't need much. But I have yet to actually sell anyone on a Mac because a) there ins't anyplace within a hundred miles to actually see/buy one and b) they cost too much for people out here in flyover country... which kinda explains the first point. ;) So why do I keep doing it? So they will bug someone else when they buy the piece of crap Dell and want someone to disinfect it every month or so.

Re:No competition on the low end

[falcon5768]

Yes but at least Apple coded it to assume that plugging in your new mouse, your not going to be trying to take over the US defense grid.

This has been true since before the switch to INTC

[nelsonal]

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).

Blah

[stratjakt]

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.

Re:Blah

[p0tat03]

You're entitled to your opinion, but take this from someone who's owned a number of PC notebooks, and knows a large number of people who own PC notebooks of all brands. (Dell, Toshiba, Acer, I am currently on a MacBook Pro, and very very happy).

If you're comparing brands like AOpen, Acer, and Toshiba to Apple, you are seriously delusional about build quality. Toshiba in my experience constantly offers more bang for the buck - my Satellite M30 was insanely fast for its price point. Of course, it also sucked ass, was flimsy, and broke a lot. The keyboard would flex downwards while typing, the trackpad would be sometimes unresponsive and difficult to use... The multimedia keys just plain didn't work... I could go on.

Acer is not better off either. If your machine doesn't have some major glitch on arrival, thank the Gods, and then proceed to discover little design flaws like whiny fans, crappy bearings in cooling units making strange grinding noises... etc. Things that Acer simply refuses to fix, regardless of how much you yell at the poor heavily-accented guy at the other end of the line (after holding for 2 hours). I will be quite content with my Mac, which if it ever has problems (it's had a few minor gremlins) is a quick phone call, with minimal waiting time, and a support rep that actually speaks English and won't run me through the checklist.

I've never dealt personally with Sony support, but like IBM, I suspect the quality is FAR above what you would get with brands like Toshiba and Acer. I've never been on hold more than 10 minutes on an Apple support line, and every time I called and described my problem, the support tech immediately got down to the issue, instead of running me around with insipid "is your computer plugged in" checklists. Repairs are similarly painless. When the latch on my MacBook Pro broke, I phoned in, and got a FedEx box in the mail the next day. No arguing, no hassles, I gave them my serial number and they confirmed my warranty, and BAM.

But yes, build quality is important to those of us who rely on our laptops for a living. I have a level of respect for Sony Vaios and IBM/Lenovo ThinkPads, because I have used them first hand and I know that their quality is excellent. The same goes for Apple. Toshiba, Acer, and older Dells are invariably crap in a plastic shell, though Dell has made some major improvements in recent years (support still sucks though).

Re:Dell != PC

[__aaclcg7560]

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.

Economies of scale

[duffbeer703]

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.

Wow.

[yourOneManArmy]

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.

Re:Notebooks, eh?

[2nd Post!]

You haven't been keeping up. Notebooks are growing at a faster rate than desktop sales, and have already overtaken them in retail:
http://news.com.com/PC+milestone--notebooks+outsel l+desktops/2100-1047_3-5731417.html

Re:Horrible Comparisons!

[Logger]

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.

Re:Imagine...

[dave420]

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 ;)

Why Apple doesn't have a $500 notebook...

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.

Mid-range macbook cheaper than a Dell? Ha!

[marquinhocb]

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).

Re:This has been true since before the switch to I

[bkr1_2k]

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.

Not true anymore

[Slashdot Parent]

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.

Re:Not true anymore

[jedidiah]

No, he read the article.

He just realizes that the author clearly glosses over that fact and then continues to bludgeon the reader his personal biases and agenda.

Re:Not true anymore

[Penguin's Advocate]

Between the end of November and the beginning of December 2006, 9 people at my office bought new laptops. Every single one of them bought a macbook pro. All completely independently, all who work at a 100% windows shop, and 8 of them had never used a mac before. Even the CEO, who spends every waking moment with her laptop, has been a dell fan for years, and openly hates Macs, ended up buying a macbook pro. How did this happen? It was pretty simple, each of them went to a bunch of sites (dell, hp, lenovo, sony, etc) and priced out the machine they would want, and then for kicks, each went to apple and priced a macbook with similar specs. In every single case the macbook came out ahead by a considerable amount. Enough to convince people who would never buy a mac to buy one, even if they were just going to install windows on it and use it as a PC. Since then, many more have bought macbooks and macbook pros. Every couple weeks someone else pops up with one. I'm guessing this is why Apple's laptop sales grew nearly 100% in the last year.

Re:Not true anymore

[fermion]

Why does apple care about your $650 dollar sale? Does it generate the 20% profit? Does it contribute to thier image as a high end computer maker?

This is not a flame. The low end computer market is very crowded, and no reputable computer maker can make a truly quality machine at that price. Even at higher prices, it is difficult. The low end computer market does not generate a profit, and depends on the MS monopoly. It is beneficial to MS to have cheap computers, and the deals to generate those cheap computer are on record.

It is actually unreasonable for anyone who just wants a cheap computer to buy a mac, just like it is unreasonable for anyone who just want cheap stuff to shop at, say Target. MS and Walmart are both cheaper options, and those who are buying solely on price tend to visit them. OTOH, both are trying to become more upscale, but the stigma of being the cheap option are hurting the effort. Why would Apple want tarnish it's image by competing at the low end? They can' win. Just look at Kmart and WalMart, or cadillac and all the other American car marks. Instead of innovating and keeping standards relitivly high, very high in the case of cadillac, they just tried to do the same old same old, respond to price, and look how it came out. KMart is all but non existent, and all the American car makers are done to the level of junk stock status. Diamler basically paid to get rid of Chrysler.

For certain machines, the Mac is cheaper. Most of the PCs I use right now could have been bought at around the same price for a Mac. On the low end, when equally configured, many PCs are more expensive than the Mac. However, that is not the point as one thing Apple does is configure machines that will run well, not just get the customer out the door.

Re:Imagine...

[0100010001010011]

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.
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:

1. Control Click (my personal favorite.) I wish control click worked on my Dell because it's faster and more ergonomic for me. Put your left hand on the home row. Now Slide your hand down and rotate it about 10 degrees so that your thumb is on the left trackpad button, your index is on the trackpad... look where your pinkie is: right next to the Control Button. For me to use the right click I have to either pull my right hand down OR rotate my left hand making it awkward.
2. Tap with 2 fingers. I'm accidentally hit the trackpad enough accidentally that I HATE tap to click. However, if you're already tapping with your index finger, your middle finger (by design) isn't too far away.
3. 3) Place 2 fingers on the trackpad and press the trackpad button.

- 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 according to my research.

[mark-t]

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.

This is because you can no longer comparison shop.

[maillemaker]

>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.

Yeah, you tell 'em!

[mattgreen]

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...

Re:This is because you can no longer comparison sh

[Score Whore]

80386, 80386SX (no math coprocessor),

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.

Shit even MHz aren't meaningful much anymore.

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.

Re:Imagine...

[ncc74656]

Apple still doesn't officially support more than 1 mouse button.

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.

Not competitive at the high end either

[Solandri]

I went through this at the end of 2006.

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.

Two winning points on the hardware side

[blueZ3]

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.

Confirming your theory.... :)

[jmorris42]

> 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.

Re:Dell != PC

[thegnu]

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] :-)

Re:This is because you can no longer comparison sh

[MightyYar]

I'm no expert, but this is what I've done for years (for desktops):

1. Go to AnandTech
2. Click on the "Guides" tab.
3. Decide whether you are an entry-level, mid-range, or high-end user.
4. Open up that guide and either buy the parts he lists, or just spec a system with the same processor, video card, and memory type.

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.

Re: qiuite true, but I can't blame them either

[Bastard of Subhumani]

"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.

Re:To the average person

[stuntpope]

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.

Re:Yeah...

[PopeRatzo]

99% of the time, PCs are cheaper than Macs

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.

Re:To the average person

[prockcore]

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.

Priced maybe, but feature wise it's not even close. http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_ id=5712986

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.

Re:To the average person

[michrech]

...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.

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..." .. 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!)

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.

Re:Maybe Apple should consider licensing OS/X agai

[Rob Y.]

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.

Re:Dell != PC

[spun]

Step 1. Choose the case. Step 2: Put your junk in that case
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.

Re:To the average person

[michrech]

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!

Re:Macs are PCs!

[Divebus]

It's not that Macs cost more initially, the question is "why is the same hardware worth less when it's pre-loaded with Windows?"

...a little humor there if you didn't spot it...

Anyway, long term, Macs win hands down in price/maintenance/resale. Yes, we resell Macs after 4-6 years. Most of the PCs are in the dumpster by then.

Re:Yeah...

[MidnightBrewer]

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.

Re:Macs are PCs!

[Watts Martin]

I think I'd disagree with this timeline.

Back when I started being a computer nerd in the late '70s, Apples and TRS-80s and Commodore PETs and (long list of more obscure brands...) were all sometimes called "personal computers," but more often called "microcomputers" by enthusiasts. The term "Personal Computer" came into play because that's what IBM named their first microcomputer: the IBM Personal Computer. That was in 1981. By 1983, programs like PC-Draw and PC-Write and PC-Terminal were shipping from third parties, there was "PC: The Disk Magazine," and companies were advertising games with "Available for Apple II, ColecoVision, and IBM PC."

The Mac, conversely, didn't come out until 1984. By the late '80s, programs were being advertised for IBM PC and/or Mac, and people were referring to "PC clones." The letters "PC" became associated with IBM PCs and compatibles not because of "Mac fanboys," but because IBM called the damn thing the IBM PC. Don't blame "less savvy" Apple users for the confusion between x86 architecture and the term PC -- less savvy IBM users are just as to blame, if not more so.

As for the confusion beween x86 and Windows, well, it didn't get the nickname "Wintel" in the '90s for nothing. The 80x86 line and Windows had a decidedly symbiotic relationship, I'd say. For practical purposes, "PC" did mean computers running Windows; whether or not it offends purists, PC = IBM PC compatible and the number of PC-compatible machines running non-Windows operating systems was extremely neglible for the longest time. One has to actually be pretty familiar with computers to make the distinction between (lower case) "personal computer," "workstation" and "server." (After all, just about anything can be pressed into use as a server, whether or not it's "server-class" hardware.)

Re:To the average person

[AdamKG]

when I was in collage.

... I kinda think you should ask for your money back.