The author first compares a high end Mac to Dell's XPS series because Inspirons cannot reach 2.4Ghz in the processor department. Is there that significant of a difference between 2.16Ghz and 2.4Ghz? I doubt it. I just went to www.dell.com, clicked my way through to the 17" Inspiron, and configured a model with 2GB RAM, equivalent optical drives, equivalent video card, and 2.16Ghz processor. The cost? Less than 1800$. I'll admit that the sound, ports, and several other "intangibles" might not perform as well as those on the Apple model. How much would an external webcam cost? Probably less than the 1000$ difference with the MacBook Pro.
Next, just being curious, I configured the 17'' XPS. I stopped after a simple processor upgrade took the cost to 2800$. I can't explain why an XPS would cost so much, but I'm assuming it has something to do with it's power as a gaming machine over the Inspiron and the MacBook Pro. As for Sony, their laptops are over priced. What about the companies not mentioned in the article? Here's a quick summary of models and their prices at a similar configuration to the MacBook Pro (with any important information added, all prices rounded up to the nearest 100$): HP dv9500t (383MB video RAM, 2.2Ghz processor, 1440 x 900) - 1600$ Asus (2.2Ghz, from www.newegg.com) - 2100$ Gateway (2.16Ghz) - 1900$ (After checking www.sony.com, an equivalent system is well over 3000$) I did not check several other companies, such as Acer or Fujitsu, because their websites did not offer configuration and Newegg did not have a 17'', 2+ Ghz model.
These systems are obviously not the same as the MacBook Pro, and I won't attempt to put a price on service, support, software, etc... But I was able to find several systems that I would deem equivalent (or close enough) in less than 10 minutes time. I can only assume that if I took the time to investigate other companies or models, I could find a better deal. The author spent the bulk of his comparison with the MacBook Pro comparing it with the XPS and Vaio, both of which are ludicrously overpriced. He admits, if only for one sentence, that HP, Tobisa, and others offer "models in the $2,000 neighborhood that approximate the MacBook Pro's equipment." As I've already stated, I don't think the jump from 2.2Ghz to 2.4Ghz is worth the increase in price.
Next, the author compares 13" MacBooks to 12" and 13" notebooks. Fist, Sony has already been discussed. Second, the sub-14" offerings on the PC market are almost always ultra-portable devices and as such are more expensive, much like notebooks designed for gaming cost more due to their relatively niche market. In my opinion, 14" or 15" screens are now the de facto standard for a midrange notebook. Assuming Dell's Inspiron has average prices, I configured a 15.4" wide-screen model to match that of a standard MacBook. Once again, the peripherals were not exact, Dell offered a better video card, and the Inspiron had a lower clock speed.But the bottom line? A 400$ difference in price (not including the 200$ paint job).
Finally, we have the iMac. I chose to configure a Dimension E5200 on Dell's website. I chose 2.13Ghz RAM (more than the iMac), a 17" Flat Panel monitor (same as the iMac), 1 GB memory (same as the iMac), 250GB HDD (more than the iMac), 16x optical drive (better than the iMac), and 256MB video card (more than the iMac). The cost? 879$ versus 1199$: a difference of 240$, or 20% of the iMac's cost. I wouldn't say that 20% is comparable.
If you want to make the claim that Macs are not more expensive than PCs, feel free to discuss software. Tell me about usability. Hell, you could even make the case that Mac's have more style. But this article only makes a comparison in hardware. It matches the all-purpose MacBook to the gaming XPS models, ultra-portable 12" notebooks, and overpriced Sony products. When matched up with the rest of the PC market, the article often lacks concrete pricing and technical specifications. And when accurate technical comparisons are made, Macs are just more expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
The author first compares a high end Mac to Dell's XPS series because Inspirons cannot reach 2.4Ghz in the processor department. Is there that significant of a difference between 2.16Ghz and 2.4Ghz? I doubt it. I just went to www.dell.com, clicked my way through to the 17" Inspiron, and configured a model with 2GB RAM, equivalent optical drives, equivalent video card, and 2.16Ghz processor. The cost? Less than 1800$. I'll admit that the sound, ports, and several other "intangibles" might not perform as well as those on the Apple model. How much would an external webcam cost? Probably less than the 1000$ difference with the MacBook Pro.
Next, just being curious, I configured the 17'' XPS. I stopped after a simple processor upgrade took the cost to 2800$. I can't explain why an XPS would cost so much, but I'm assuming it has something to do with it's power as a gaming machine over the Inspiron and the MacBook Pro.
As for Sony, their laptops are over priced.
What about the companies not mentioned in the article? Here's a quick summary of models and their prices at a similar configuration to the MacBook Pro (with any important information added, all prices rounded up to the nearest 100$):
HP dv9500t (383MB video RAM, 2.2Ghz processor, 1440 x 900) - 1600$
Asus (2.2Ghz, from www.newegg.com) - 2100$
Gateway (2.16Ghz) - 1900$
(After checking www.sony.com, an equivalent system is well over 3000$)
I did not check several other companies, such as Acer or Fujitsu, because their websites did not offer configuration and Newegg did not have a 17'', 2+ Ghz model.
These systems are obviously not the same as the MacBook Pro, and I won't attempt to put a price on service, support, software, etc... But I was able to find several systems that I would deem equivalent (or close enough) in less than 10 minutes time. I can only assume that if I took the time to investigate other companies or models, I could find a better deal.
The author spent the bulk of his comparison with the MacBook Pro comparing it with the XPS and Vaio, both of which are ludicrously overpriced. He admits, if only for one sentence, that HP, Tobisa, and others offer "models in the $2,000 neighborhood that approximate the MacBook Pro's equipment."
As I've already stated, I don't think the jump from 2.2Ghz to 2.4Ghz is worth the increase in price.
Next, the author compares 13" MacBooks to 12" and 13" notebooks. Fist, Sony has already been discussed. Second, the sub-14" offerings on the PC market are almost always ultra-portable devices and as such are more expensive, much like notebooks designed for gaming cost more due to their relatively niche market. In my opinion, 14" or 15" screens are now the de facto standard for a midrange notebook. Assuming Dell's Inspiron has average prices, I configured a 15.4" wide-screen model to match that of a standard MacBook. Once again, the peripherals were not exact, Dell offered a better video card, and the Inspiron had a lower clock speed.But the bottom line? A 400$ difference in price (not including the 200$ paint job).
Finally, we have the iMac. I chose to configure a Dimension E5200 on Dell's website. I chose 2.13Ghz RAM (more than the iMac), a 17" Flat Panel monitor (same as the iMac), 1 GB memory (same as the iMac), 250GB HDD (more than the iMac), 16x optical drive (better than the iMac), and 256MB video card (more than the iMac).
The cost? 879$ versus 1199$: a difference of 240$, or 20% of the iMac's cost. I wouldn't say that 20% is comparable.
If you want to make the claim that Macs are not more expensive than PCs, feel free to discuss software. Tell me about usability. Hell, you could even make the case that Mac's have more style. But this article only makes a comparison in hardware. It matches the all-purpose MacBook to the gaming XPS models, ultra-portable 12" notebooks, and overpriced Sony products. When matched up with the rest of the PC market, the article often lacks concrete pricing and technical specifications.
And when accurate technical comparisons are made, Macs are just more expensive.