“Although Apple’s machines are more expensive than PCs, one Wall Street researcher says the price of a Mac isn’t that much more than a comparable Windows-based computer. Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said that his research shows an average price difference of only 13 percent for desktops and 10 percent for laptops, once you factor in the same components that Apple uses.” Run, Forrest, run!
20-inch widescreen LCD with 1680×1050 resolution
2.0GHz Intel Core Duo with 2MB shared L2 cache
512MB (single SO-DIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
250GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load 8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
oh really, this unupgradable system with all that hardware that is neatly packed into the monitor which i think as a wide lower frame, is priced at $1699. for a
intel cpu, only 512mb of system ram(weak),OMG ATI graphics, why not Nvidia,etc.
i can pick this system, instead
for about $200 less from alienware:
Intel® Pentium® D Processor 920
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
1GB DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
80GB 7200 RPM SATA w/8MB Cache
NVIDIA® Quadro™ FX 330 PCI Express 64MB DDR
and i can choose any momitor i want size,color,and brand. all that almost as much as a mac, but better.
That Alienware doesn’t even compare to the iMac — are you on crack?
Pentium D 920 (sh*t) vs. 2.0 GHz Core Duo
80 GB vs. 250 GB
Quadro 330 vs. Radeon X1600
No monitor
Bring the other parts up to spec, and throw in a 20″ LCD, and your Alienware is going to cost you a f*ckload of a lot more.
Alienware:
– AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4600+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
– Windows XP Pro
– Alienware® NVidia nForce™4 SLI™ X16 Motherboard
– 2GB Dual Channel Low-Latency DDR PC-3200 at 400MHz – 2 x 1024MB
– 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7,200 RPM w/ NCQ & 8MB Cache
– 16x Dual Layer DVD±R/W Drive
– 512MB ATI RADEON™ X1900 XTX
– Samsung SyncMaster 204B 20.1″ 5ms LCD – Black
– soundcard, ethernet and all the ussual crap built in.
Apple:
The fastest G5 Powermac with comparable specs; 2 gigs of RAM, 250 GB HDD, 20″ display, OS X,… all the ussual crap besides the gfx which is Geforce 7800GT.
Apple: $4,748.00
Alienware: $3,347.00
There. We didn’t need a Wall Street researcher for this one huh?
Edited 2006-05-17 01:36
Everyone seems fearful to respond after you showed a high end Mac obviously costs more. I’d much rather have the Alienware machine (or a similar custom built one, since Alienware isn’t really my thing). Well done.
“There. We didn’t need a Wall Street researcher for this one huh?”
Perhaps because the High end powermac is a QUAD aka a DUAL dual core, and the alienware only a DUAL core.
Here the real equivalent of your config from Apple:
2.3GHz Dual-core PowerPC G5
2GB 533 DDR2 Non ECC SDRAM- 2x1GB
250GB Serial ATA – 7200rpm
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 256MB SDRAM
Apple Cinema Display (20″ flat panel)
16x SuperDrive DL (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mouse – U.S. English
Mac OS X – U.S. English
Price: 3,598.00
So Alienware is 3347$ and Apple 3598$. Not so much difference when your opinion is not biased …
Right, and the highest-end product that Apple sells is going to be representative in terms of price to say, a consumer-level iMac, or consumer-level iBook/MacBook … right?
Bzzt.
Find me a comparable notebook to the new MacBook — and that means all the built-in features, Core Duo processor, excellent battery life, great industrial design, same size, same weight (or less) — for $1200 CAD.
Then we’ll talk. 🙂
same size, same weight (or less)
I can’t help but laugh when people characterize Mac portables as “small” or “light.” I take it they’ve never seen or used any of Sharp’s Actius models, the Thinkpad X series, any of Toshiba’s ultralights, etc.
I currently make do with a Thinkpad x30 and I’d seriously consider a Mac laptop, if Apple made anything under the 4lb mark. I’m not interested in wowing easily-impressed girls in Starbucks, I just want something that can be carried around all day without breaking my collarbone.
My iBook G4 fits that envelope just fine. The 12″ PowerBook G4 is even thinner. Sure, it’s not super-thin and super-light like those $2000 models by IBM or Sharp or Fujitsu, but at the same time, it’s a lot lighter and smaller than other laptops in the $1200 CAD range.
To each his own.
Still, the stupidity of comparing the most expensive PowerMac to a consumer-level iMac stands.
//great industrial design//
including the “burn up the insides of the laptop” feature, prominent on the new Macbooks.
no thanks.
Apple did indeed botch the MBP. I’m no defender of its problems.
Don’t judge a company’s entire product range based on one product, though. 😉
Good advice. Just like misjudging a top-of-the-line Dell Inspiron, if your only experience is with a $350 Dimension.
though, to be fair … i feel it’s fine to judge a product line based on one product … if that one product is the companies newest, *MOST EXPENSIVE* laptop.
I’d call that a major screwup, not just a “botch.”
The MBP doesn’t change the quality reliability of existing PowerBooks/iBooks.
That’s all I’m saying.
I am a PC-turned-Mac-turned-PC user; I used an iBook for two years, and now my main computer is a cheap-ass Dell running Ubuntu that works great. I’m very much a PC/Linux person at the moment.
But still, you have to admit that your comparison is a bit unfair. Apple is coming out with computers with processors that they’re claiming are 4-5 times faster than the old G3/G4s. They’re all but admitting that you should only buy a G5 tower if you need to run something for which Rosetta isn’t fast enough. No one else would, or should, buy one. So why are you comparing that computer with a very desirable and modern Alienware system?
I readily admit that if you want the most powerful desktop computer on the market, Apple’s the wrong place to look. (I also admit that if you want the cheapest good-enough computer on the market, then you should be buying a Dell, not a Mac — at least, that’s what I did.) But the $1,500 you’d spend on a MacBook would not buy you a significantly better PC laptop. You might be able to find a computer which had a better combination of features for your needs than the MacBook (say, a slightly bigger monitor, more memory, Gigabit Ethernet, or anything really), but it would be worse in some other area.
Personally, I doubt I’ll ever buy a Mac again. But that’s because I don’t want to spend more than $500 on a computer and because I use Linux so the software argument is moot for me. It’s not because Apple’s system is a ripoff for what you’re getting.
Dude, that Alienware config sucks. Your HDD is 1/3 the size, your GPU is slower and has half the RAM, and it runs Windows
Here is an actual comparable Alienware config:
Area-51 3550 (Base Price $1229).
+ 35 for Media Center Remote
+ 100 upgrade to 250GB HDD
+ 50 upgrade to dual-layer DVD burner
+ 100 upgrade to 128MB 6600LE
+ ~350 for 2005FPW using coupon
Total $1828
The Alienware takes up more space, is undoubtedly louder, has slower graphics, no wifi, no bluetooth, no video camera, no microphone, and costs $100 more.
Dude, your comp got 0wned…
This implies the OS does NOT matter and that is simply NOT true. All computers are NOT created equally!
To own both Macs an PCs for a while you do realize they’re not as expensive as percieved… initial investment is greater, that’s the hurdle.
IMHO Jb
Why are we not seeing investigations in how much the investment has brought back in, say after 1 or 2 years of usage of a PC and a Mac?
IT support is very important for businesses (duh) if their computers are supposed to keep running after they bought them. You have to pay for support when the machine breaks or when “it’s that time of the month again” to reinstall or clean the machine of viruses, spam, etc.
If a company with 20 employees has one IT supporter/admin, how much running around does he have to do, if he’s supporting 20 WinXP PC’s versus 20 Macs? I’d like to see some analysis of that.
I say running around, because I remember at my old school, an IT supporter usually wore some comfortable sneakers. Why did he do that? Because it was much kinder to his feet, when he was spending much of the day running around in the large building with a Ghost CD reinstalling Windows boxes. 🙂
Another thing is productivity. Depending on what you do, how much time do you spend learning how to get around in your tools? You probably learn your tools at some point, so you won’t have too much trouble, but what if something breaks down? How long will it stay down and can you fix it yourself? It’s about the get-work-done factor.
Heh, I’ll tell you my IT support story.
I went from supporting 4 WinXP PCs at my house to supporting 3 and 1 Mac. I moved my Mom to a Mac. The effort I spent supporting her machine has dropped from “an annoyingly large amount” to zilch.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s better than dollars in the bank to me.
A bit biased against Windows, aren’t we. Not like I’m not.
Unfortunately, I guess we don’t see many analysis because of software availability. Even the lousiest PC is going to be a better investment than the best Mac if the latter cannot run the software you need. Like you said, it’s the get-work-done factor.
There is a tremedous amount of proprietary/in-house software that was written for a sole platform. Unfortunately, it happens quite often that alternatives don’t exist or are not satisfactory. Vendor lock-in is a sad reality.
It could be possible to make investigations on specific, limited settings (e.g. a computer for a secretary, an educational PC, etc), but I don’t think they would be really useful.
“Even the lousiest PC is going to be a better investment than the best Mac if the latter cannot run the software you need”
This statement will be false starting some time this year. You can now IN BETA boot full-speed Windows on a Mac. I expect, one will soon have full-speed VIRTUALIZED Windows (avoiding annoying reboots) before very long. You will get all teh Mac advantages,plus, you will be able to run that awful little VB script one of your IT guys wrote 10 years ago….
This statement will be false starting some time this year. You can now IN BETA boot full-speed Windows on a Mac. I expect, one will soon have full-speed VIRTUALIZED Windows (avoiding annoying reboots) before very long. You will get all teh Mac advantages,plus, you will be able to run that awful little VB script one of your IT guys wrote 10 years ago….
Virtualisation isn’t a panacea: it won’t make MS-Windows better. Furthermore, it’s not a question of “awful little VB scripts” (which could easilly be rewritten), but rather professional/in-house applications. If you are running MS-Windows in virtualisation about 80% of the time, then you are likely to have the same issues than on the lousy PC (if you get some). That’s without mentionning that you would still need a licence for MS-Windows…
In fact, the main difference would be that your staff will need to learn two different platforms and the IT helldesk will have to support two platforms… I insist on supporting two platforms, since Macs are not fail-proof. We have a research lab using Macs and they have their own issues.
Thus, I’m not sure virtualisation would be the definitive answer.
//I say running around, because I remember at my old school, an IT supporter usually wore some comfortable sneakers.//
Then your old school was very … “old school,” and apparently had a pitiful network system.
My old job had me admining 150+ Windows boxen … maybe had 2 or 3 issues per day. All were centrally administered via the W2K3 domain controller.
My old job had me admining 150+ Windows boxen … maybe had 2 or 3 issues per day. All were centrally administered via the W2K3 domain controller.
Well, this was back in ’97, ’98, so that’s how it were back then. Those win98 boxes required tonnes of maintenance. I once saw a class room of brand new Dells degrading to a non-working state over the course of a single week. Hopefully it’s better now and easier to lock down.
//Well, this was back in ’97, ’98, so that’s how it were back then//
So, really, your story is kind of irrelevant — Yes, Windows has changed a LOT since ’98. A fully patched XP Pro system is pretty much rock solid, and requires *very* little “running around from desk to desk.”
Like, almost never.
It’s one of the age old comments that come into every PC vs Mac discussion.
Hardware wise, PC’s are going to be cheaper.
But after you factor in all the software etc, the gap gets pretty narrow.
Hrm? I don’t pay anything for most GPL’d… aside from the occasional donation when I can afford it.
That’s what it used to be. In the past, people said “Oh man, Macs are so cool, if prices were comparable, I’d go for a Mac.”
These days, prices are comparable, some even argue the Apple laptops are better value, but all of a sudden that doesn’t seem to be enough. Even with OS X leaving that other OS in the dust for Joe User’s everyday computing, the discussions now seem to put beige boxes on the top, unless the Mac clearly comes out as the cheaper choice. These are strange times we live in.
Apple does of course have the advantage of not having to pay the MSFT tax that any other vendor pays. That’s not to say that it costs nothing to develop OS X but I am sure it saves Apple a lot of money
The perception gets skewed a lot by the lack of a real lower end for Macs, besides the Mac mini, which is so stylish and compact it’s still not true lower end (because you pay more for the package being the way it is).
I for one am comfortable using PCs that cost less than 300 euro total, building it myself. That’s half a Mac.
The interesting thing about the Mac Mini is that if you compare it against PCs in the same form factor instead of some random $200 e-machine, they become the most competetively priced Mac there is.
For example, a Core Duo Mac Mini in the base configuration goes for $800. A CappuccinoPC Mocha 7043 that’s comporable except for the 2Ghz Celeron instead of a 1.66Ghz Core Duo will go for $1,283.
The article is light on details, but I’m curious about their methods. If you take a specific Mac computer and try to build an identical PC, I’m not surprised that the cost is so close.
Now if you take $1000 and buy the best Mac at that price and the best PC at that price, the PC is probably going to be much better equipped.
Isn’t that what it’s really about? Getting the most for your money.
That’s not really the point is it, the argument always is that Macs cost more for the same machine due to the supposedly huge Apple proffit margin and/or the underpowered tech in Apple machines. Of course if you start swapping components out you are going to change the cost as you have to bare in mind that Apple make a small range of machines with a limited number of component options (but still manage to cover most of the core desktop/laptop/workstation market except the ultra low and ultra high ends which are best left to companies like Dell and Alienware. Notice these are not markets that other big companies like H.P. compete in either).
Really the issue is not that Macs are more expensive but that Macs have a smaller range of options and cannot be custom built.
I’m not so impressed with this article, the choice of machines in it doesn’t seem to make sense (such as the core solo laptop)
I think you missed what I said. I’m sure apple is buying components in such a way that they are getting the best value possible from their suppliers.
If you are buying a computer, you would do the same, you wouldn’t go out and buy exactly what apple has in their machine just so it matches a mac. Say there is a 160GB HD in a Mac Mini. You price out HDs and find that you can get a 250GB drive for only a few bucks more than a 160. Obviously, the smart choice is the bigger drive.
Do you see what I’m getting at? Copying Apple’s hardware choices is not the best way to build a PC at a certain price point.
Yeah, my point was that Macs aren’t more expensive, there are just a narrower range of options as you can’t buildd one yourself and sacrifice some compoents for others or one supplier for another to tweak perofrmance etc.
Why yet another troll fueling the Apple vs. everyone else debate? Can’t we all just get along? Scheesh….
You did see Mars-Attacks .. right ?
But yeah … boring subject .
OSnews is suppossed to IMO have a broad range of topics on OSes not always the same Mac .. Vista .. Linux instead of Mac .. whatever stuff …
-> dailyrotation.com BTW is also lots useful
EDIT :<add> : thinkmate.com has some B I G machines .
Edited 2006-05-17 15:07
Intel® Pentium® D Processor 920
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
1GB DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
80GB 7200 RPM SATA w/8MB Cache
NVIDIA® Quadro™ FX 330 PCI Express 64MB DDR
and i can choose any momitor i want size,color,and brand. all that almost as much as a mac, but better.
XP eh? Okay how much for time spent on antivirus, spyware cleaning… does it have an included software suite for DVD playback, creation, movie authoring, PDF creation from any application, music editing, podcast/webpage authoring and publishing, photo archiving and book publishing, audio and video chat with multiple people using built-in hardware… can it run OSX without a hack? To me, the 10% extra cost for the Mac is justified by the included software alone, and how extremely well it is integrated into the user experience.
http://www.apple.com/ilife/
XP eh? Okay how much for time spent on antivirus, spyware cleaning… does it have an included software suite for DVD playback, creation, movie authoring, PDF creation from any application, music editing, podcast/webpage authoring and publishing, photo archiving and book publishing, audio and video chat with multiple people using built-in hardware…
Yes, once you install Linux.
Ok, not all of it, but a lot. If you’re going to argue this way, you give Windows trolls the opportunity to respond with arguments such as: “But does your Mac come with a choice of the newest graphics cards, does it play games, does it have drivers for nearly every decive under the sun?”
Absolutely pointless. The discussion was about hardware after all.
I like how you tried to hide your Linux troll inside a comment about Windows trolls. Very well done, good job.
I like how you tried to hide your Linux troll inside a comment about Windows trolls. Very well done, good job.
Yes, crafty, wasn’t it? Except that the Linux comment was there to make my statements generalisable. If you’re going to discuss software in a hardware article, you’re going to get a lot of discussion on every kind of software with differing value bases.
XP eh? Okay how much for time spent on antivirus, spyware cleaning… does it have an included software suite for […] -> To me <-, the 10% extra cost for the Mac is justified by the included software alone, and how extremely well it is integrated into the user experience.
It’s all about “to me”. To me, I couldn’t care less of all that junk. As for antivirus and spyware cleaning, I never spent any time/money on it, be it on MS-Windows or Linux. Anyway, it’s not like OS X is immune from these threats[1]…
I believe it’s just a question of preference. If you have lots of stuff that you couldn’t care less, then it’s as useful as having nothing at all. If you care, then I suppose it’s a great choice.
Now, I’m going to get a Mac Mini this summer, but it’s more for curiosity than anything else. That 10% premium is offset by my student discount, anyway!
[1]: Well, maybe it is…
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060513 😉
Edited 2006-05-17 02:03
If you care for their (Apple’s) software, yes. But nobody said you have to run Windows on it and even that will come with loads of applications usually pre-installed by your OEM, def. DVD, movie editor (I think that’s standard in Win in ME and XP) – so that’s a draw.
Once it comes to buying any software for Mac out there after your initial computer purchase or games they are always at least £10 more than for Windows, this will quickly make it even less economic.
I’ve researched this in’98/’99 when thinking of buying a Mac or going for pc again, and decided for the pc.
And there are no games in bargain bins for Mac either…
Even in the 80’s, you bought an apple and went a long, long, long time before you ever thought about upgrades outside of a few apps or even accessories and even then it usually was adding to it’s life expectancy more than anything else, they may not have came with everything but they came fully loaded ready to play.
can you run a linux distro on the macbook?
Apparently Red Hat is working hard on it…during the meantime you can boot Solaris
http://chuckup.blogspot.com/2006/04/solaris-booting-on-intel-based….
can you run a linux distro on the macbook?
Ubuntu Dapper will aparently run on a MacBook Pro, but it can’t support the proper screen resolution as ATI hasn’t released any Linux drivers for the video chip.
As the MacBook (non-pro) has only been available for about a day, I doubt anyone’s tried it yet. But since it uses a standard Intel graphics chip (with full, open source drivers from Intel), it should theoretically work perfectly.
Now if only Apple would recognise that Linux exists and add Boot Camp support…
Especially considering that Apple’s 20″ Cinemadisplay is _exactly_ the same as the Dell 2005fpw. The only difference is that Apple’s costs 100%+ more.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/27/anandtech-dell-2005fpw-vs-apple-…
AnandTech asked (and answered) whether Apple’s is actually any better than Dell’s. The conclusion? We won’t keep you in suspense—they scored near identically in all verticals, but the Dell edged out on its price, which is more than marginal difference.
Especially considering that Apple’s 20″ Cinemadisplay is _exactly_ the same as the Dell 2005fpw. The only difference is that Apple’s costs 100%+ more.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/27/anandtech-dell-2005fpw-vs-apple-…..
I remember reading this comparison before. It said the Dell one was nicer for having multiple inputs and picture-in-picture. I’m with them on that part. But they also said the Apple display looked a little washed out, but they were comparing them side-by-side on a Windows machine, which Dell’s would obviously be tuned for. It also came out later, though I can’t remember where, that the Dell monitor had less consistent backlighting. But yes, the panel itself is exactly the same part number from exactly the same company.
I looked at the Macbook Pro vs the ThinkPad T60 (I have my 2nd TP at the moment), and the Thinkpad is a nice quality system and much more comparable to Apple’s products than say a crappy Dell, or HP etc.. which I would not dare use compare to my Thinkpad.
And what I saw was that really they are almost identical in hardware specs (Core Duo etc), and almost identical in pricing.
And since I want to eliminate the poor quality Windows crap from Microsoft, I decided to buy the Macbook.
I had ThinkPad; once. I had to return the thing 4 times because of heat issues, and display issues. I’d never own another one, total POS. I’ve since had a DELL Latitude with no issues, great performance and battery life. I also use an HP 8230 at work, and it too has great battery life, no problems at all.
As for the MacBooks; 13″ screen for $1500, with sub-par resolution, please. I’d consider the high end MacBook Pro, but none of the other Mac Books…too much $$$ for what you’re getting…
Well actually, the Apple would give you more hardware for the money, however, for the price, the IBM includes a better warranty. With Apple you have to spend another $300 for a warranty and it is a depot warranty. No tech comes out to your site to fix it. I have been on the road and had the TP break. I place a service call, the tech shows up in my hotel the next day and fixes the laptop. With Apple, I have to find a local reseller that will fix it, and hope to God that they have the parts in stock. Dell or IBM win this hands down. The other problem is quality. I used to own a 15″ 1.67GHz PB, the model that the MacBook replaced, and the it was a problem child. Lines on the LCD, overheating, bad Wifi reception, etc. It looked really nice, but was a POS. Apple!= quality
Don’t give me that “Quality” Sh*t.
I’ve got a company supplied Gateway with WinXP Pro.
Download a large file and the desktop becomes UNUSABLE.
The graphics are so poor that it shrinks and expands the icons whenever I turn it on or change windows.
Microsoft shouldn’t even be in the OS building business,
and Gateway shouldn’t even be allowed to sell such low quality junk.
What we are seeing in the PC world is the Wal-Mart effect: Dell, Gateway, HP are all racing to the bottom of the quality curve.
The last two laptop’s I’ve bought were PC laptop and they both had quality issues.
My Powerbook has been great.
As long as Steve Job’s uses OS X, I’ll be buying Apple.
Sounds to me like your company is cheap, or the IT department has a bunch of idiots, or both. I think the Mac is a nice system, as is OSX. But if you compare apples to apples, you can get a WinXP system for a lot less, and the quality is as good, or better [including service]. Many of the arguments here are that if you compare any of the new MacBooks with a WinXP system that has the same configuration, the PC will be far less and just as good in quality. If you have $2200 to shell out for a new Mac, great knock yourself out! But for most people, who do email, Internet, some documents/spreadsheets, a $1200 DELL/HP/IBM will suffice and be just as reliable.
If you’ve got $1200, why not get an iMac? If you’ve only got half that, why not get a Mini?
Because they’re talking about laptops. If we were comparing those, then I’d spend about $350 and build a 64 Bit AMD box…
Most non-tech users dont care what parts are in the Mac, nor do they really care whats in the PC. Why would an average consumer buy a PC for $1299 when they can buy a $499 model that will do what they want.
Because you get what you pay for and said $499 model breaks down within 6 months. Or to put it like this, do you think it’s odd that a certain model of HPs can’t be used together with a certain model of HP printers? I did, until I found out that the HP PC was a cheapskate version.
I have a $499.00 PC that I have been running for 2 years and actually have had to send off my G4 for repairs. That $499.00 PC has lasted longer
Just to expand a little on what I’ve read and think.
Seeing as the difference between price, when built with as close to the same spec’s as possible, it’s not very much.
Now look at the support costs.
For me personally, I don’t run Virus scanners on my Windows machine, nor do I run Spyware checks weekly. (I will every 6months or 12months)
Because for me, I don’t have the problem, I install Opensource software, I’m very selective of installing anything and being stupid of opening documents in emails.
The average user, the average joe that works 9-5 that does some word processing, isn’t computer literate, knows a little, but not a huge amount, they are the ones you need to be careful of.
A Mac for them, is a good idea, the extra money that you may spend on the Mac, will come back pretty quick because they don’t get spyware as easy and virus’s as easy.
Whereas the Windows machine would probably suffer.
Great if you have all Gurus at work, but it’s rare
It’s not just a clear cut, Macs are better, or PC’s are better, everyones situation is different, and I believe a lot of people don’t factor in all the variables when considering the price difference.
ok so we all have opinions. lets just bang our head against a wall arguing our opinions until we hit like 400+ posts. do you really think you are going to change the other guys mind? I mean really… its opinion!
That being said, It seems that everyone that has ACTUALLY USED BOTH likes the mac and thinks its justified (although still liking their windows/netbsd/linux box). Kinda hard to argue if you havent use them.
.adam.
The price difference is something that is used again and again by people who obviously can’t stand it that other people wish to buy an Apple computer. They claim it is possible to get better hardware for a cheaper price. The price difference for specific hardware is a fact, not an opinion. (and that was the topic of this article)
I’m glad someone finally tried to compare the price based on the hardware which is inside. Too bad, they only looked at the higher end hardware. I’d love to have seen a comparison for the 13″ MacBook.
In any case, the 10% price difference for laptops is a lot more realistic than what you get to hear from anti-Apple people. Whether the 10% is worth it because of the design, OSX, added software, or any other reason is a personal thing of course.
Apple sells computers, while buying one (for me) only makes sense when buying a laptop. Otherwise I will build one myself, picking components that I want. I don’t understand why all of the sudden people want to buy overpriced Apple branded Intel PC, while you get same hardware components, well except the fancy EFI and TPM chip on the motherboard, or wireless one-key mouse.
What happened to a OSX cracking effort anyway?
Personally, I’d also only buy a laptop from Apple (I own an iBook G4), even though I’d love to run linux (or osx) on a dual or quad G5..
For a desktop, it’s very likely that I’d also pick the components I want and assemble the machine myself; however, I can see the attractiveness of Apple hardware.
Take for example the iMac. I know it’s not attractive for most computer savvy people since you can’t (easily) replace/upgrade hardware components. On the other hand, the whole system is integrated in the screen. This means there is no bunch of all kinds of cabling on the back of the machine. It also means that it does take less space than a ‘regular’ pc… there is no system case you need to find a place for. Another thing that makes Apple machines attractive, is that. for as far as I know, they are fairly silent (at least for the iMac, don’t know about the PowerMac).
I can see why people want to pay 10% more for the same hardware, but in a different package.
I can see why people want to pay 10% more for the same hardware, but in a different package.
Heck, people will pay even more for the same hardware, only with a different name. I’m thinking the Chevy Prizm and Toyota Corolla, the GMS Yukon and the Cadillac Escalade, or the Pontiac Vibe and the Toyota Matrix.
Rayiner, babe, no use trying to explain things to some simpletons on the site; they would rather rant and rave, throw dung around the cage, and rattle the bars rather than listening to someone like you, who has their head on their shoulders straight, and gives a cohesive reply.
Ultimate whether you buy a PC or a Mac, depends on what your requirements are, how valuable your time is, and which one suites the respective job.
For example, if one were to run Linux or FreeBSD, one would be stupid to purchase a Mac; the Mac’s advantage is the integration between software and hardware.
If you want that close integration, then you go for a Mac; that is what you ‘pay the premium’ for – you get an operating system which has been designed for YOUR machine, rather than an operating system which *hopefully* *might* work flawlessly with your machine as with the case of Windows XP and the number of dodgy vendors out there (HP being part of that).
Edited 2006-05-17 05:19
“you get an operating system which has been designed for YOUR machine”
Of course it wasn’t designed for your machine. It, like the Dell which you could also take out of the box and have work, comes with drivers for the hardware. They are the same. There is no sense in which OS X stands in a different relation to its hardware than XP does. It just stands in that same relation to rather less hardware. So what? This has nothing to do with integration.
Or, if I’m wrong, tell me exactly what it is. I ran a radeon 9000 series card on Linux and XP. This is what used to be in the Mini. It ran just the same. Explain how it was more integrated in one than the other.
I do not base my decisions on hardware alone. You do not buy a car and forget to factor in insurance, fuel and tax.
* I chose a Macbook Pro because it was very thin, this made travelling easier, and impresses clients.
* It has a light up keyboard which helps me work when travelling on trains or in low light conditions for quick changes before a meeting
* The built in video camera allows me to video conference with clients, without a bulky and cumbersome setup.
* The magnetic adapter means I won’t lose a couple of weeks productivity if I step on the cord and rip the power lead out of the machine.
* The trackpad allows double finger scrolling, saving me time and hassle when having to operate without a mouse.
* I do not waste any valuable time dealing with viruses and spyware and windows update, nor do I have any expenditures involved with these.
* Backups are much easier, restoring my system doesn’t involve a hundred folders in a hundred different hidden locations. I can just save my User folder, plonk it on a new machine, and everything is back to where it was before.
* Features like Exposé save me a lot of time in managing my work
* The built-in DVD authoring software lets me produce quick and easy DVDs to show ideas to clients. This impresses clients and helps me secure income.
Frankly, comparing the price of Apple computers just on price alone obviously shows how little work people do here. Do you just spend all your time looking at the machine, or in the case of windows, maintaining it?
I’m tired of these articles because they have no basis in reality. Choosing a Mac has saved my many hundreds of hours, and made me much more income. Price is just so irrelevant, it does not factor.
Of course it wasn’t designed for your machine. It, like the Dell which you could also take out of the box and have work, comes with drivers for the hardware. They are the same. There is no sense in which OS X stands in a different relation to its hardware than XP does. It just stands in that same relation to rather less hardware. So what? This has nothing to do with integration.
Or, if I’m wrong, tell me exactly what it is. I ran a radeon 9000 series card on Linux and XP. This is what used to be in the Mini. It ran just the same. Explain how it was more integrated in one than the other.
For a start, Apple write their own drivers; Apple write the drivers for the ATI and Nvidia hardware they include with their machines; Apple also control and own the MacOS X.
When Apple develops MacOS X; they have all the hardware which has been released, which MacOS X targets, and are able to able to test with in their own organisation.
Dell, on the other hand, are the mercy of Microsoft; can Dell tweak with the source code? does Dell test every machine ever released, which Windows targets, modify the source code when they come accross incompatibility issues? nope. Do they write the drivers, and maintain them as to address any possible issues that might arise from the hardware combination which they sold to an end user? nope.
Dell assembles a machine, dumps on Windows with some drivers, then sends it on its merry little way. Apple designs a machine, gets it assembled, tests MacOS X, making any necessary changes/additions to MacOS X to take into account changes in the hardware, and they ship a special version for their machines (which is normally a version branched off the latest update).
Is it me, or am I the *ONLY* person who can see the blood obvious? heck, I’m not even a Mac user, I’m a Dell 8400 w/ FreeBSD 6.1/KDE 3.5.2 user, and yet, I know the ‘limitations’ of the horizotal approach which the PC industry uses.
Want cheap and good enough technology, then go PC, want a heavily tested and integrated approach, go vertical, in the case of Apple, SUN etc.
They may write their own drivers. Who cares, as long as the drivers work? My question remains, show me how differently an Apple Radeon driver works rather than the Linux or the XP drivers. I personally have used all three and can see no difference. I cannot see the difference in hard drives, opticals, memory or PSUs either. I cannot see, either, any particular difficulty in installing new hardware on either Windows or Linux. The method used just works, with extremely rare exceptions.
“Dell assembles a machine, dumps on Windows with some drivers”. This is a perjorative way of describing the process of assembling and testing a machine, which Dell goes through like everyone else. If it doesn’t work, what do they do? First off, it probably does work, because the drivers were made to work with Windows. But if it really doesn’t, they either use a different card or get the supplier to fix it. Just what Apple does. I sincerely hope Apple is not going around tweaking the kernel every time they have to patch a driver to improve it! What is the difference? Doing things in house is not a recipe for quality particularly, it is how you manage it, either in-house or externally.
I would believe the argument more, if I had not read so much on the Apple forums about the problems people seem to have with using perfectly ordinary flat panel screens with the PPC Minis. What happened? Or were they all wrong to buy third party screens?
I don’t doubt Apple tests, as do all PC manufacturers and their suppliers. What I doubt is that it is any more effective or qualitatively different.
If you spend any time bringing computing to people who are short of money, its not this sort of comparison that matters to you.
Someone wants cheap computing, you can get them an ex corporate PIII, put Mandriva or similar on it, and the total cost, hardware and software, is well under £100 in the UK. Well under. Inkjet included. Support is pretty easy.
You cannot do this for them with Apple or with Windows. At least, you cannot do it with any software included.
Socially, its not always about saving 10% on shiny new boxes, it can be about getting people something that improves their lives for far less than they ever thought it could cost.
I held off buying a laptop until I saw what the new MacBooks were like. In the UK at least, with the educational discount that I’m entitled to, the Apple pricing looks pretty good to me. The one I bought was only marginally more expensive than the HP I was seriously considering, but the processor is better, and it has the build in bluetooth, iSight and iLife. Apple still hasn’t got anything to rival the cheap £400 windows laptops, but I wasn’t in the market for that sort of thing anyway.
I am affraid, that the myth “Mac’s are more expensive than PC’s” will not fade away with that study.
From my viewpoint:
– Mac’s used to be more expensive than normal PC’s
– Mac’s are still more expensive if you compare them with your own made/build PC’s
– Mac’s compared to PC’s from other brands are +/- the same price
– As a reseller (I am one): The discount I get from Apple on Mac’s is very low (normaly you get as a reseller between 15% to 45% discount. On Apple hardware and software the discount is in one digit procentage. If you get 10% (to get that you must be in some special programs of Apple) then you have luck)
The Mac’s may be a bit (1 digit %) more expensive than other brands. But if you do the math over a period of time, then I can tell you that Mac’s are in no way more expensive than a Windows PC with equal components and software.
I am in no way a Mac lover (I don’t like Mac OS X. I can’t work with it. And I don’t have the time to get used to it), but all those people claiming that Mac’s are much much more expensive than PC’s are either laying or they are stealing (or getting free) their PC’s and/or software from somewhere (else I have no explanation how they can claim such a thing).
cheers
SteveB
PS: My post will get me minus points from all the zealots in this forum. But I don’t care. What I wrote above is true over here in Switzerland. The prices are +/- the same.
Recently, I helped a client set up several Mac OS X boxes. They ranged from MacBook Pros, iMacs to a dual G5 Tower (direct mail, printing facility). All of them w/ over 1GB ram.
I came home and the Dell laptop arrived w/ dual core, 1gb ram, 128mb ati gfx card, wireless, etc. I set it up.
After dealing with the Macs, the Dell with WinXP just seemed dated or not up to par. Mac OS X to me clearly beats WinXP in usability and ease of use.
Xgrid is a hoot, you gotta try it with a group of Macs.
I can’t wait to get a Macbook Pro.
Not this old chestnut again. Apple sells poorly kitted machines for more money. Period. If you think the hardware or the OS is worth the premium, then fine, please buy yourself a Mac – they’re great machines, generally. I’ll probably be buying my wife another here fairly soon myself. But for fsck’s sake, please stop pretending that somehow $2k is actually less expensive than $800.
Do apple add any diamonds on top of the laptop?
Can you convince average Joe(90% population) that Mercedez has better parts than camry?
Can you convince average joe that AOL dialup($26/mo) has better quality than another ISP($8/mo)
Can you convince average joe that $200 Nordstrom shirt has better quality than $20 Walmart shirt?
NO WAY,
Whatever you glorify about Apple, it will not boil down to average Joe who waits at 0500AM on blackout sales days at Bestbuy or Circuitcity.
And no one here is considering equally high priced Working PERIPHREALS with your Apple laptop.
Just check following Dell, satisfying average Joe for $1024 1GB mem, 100GB HD, XP media Center, 15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA Display
Install Antivir, Adware, Spybot, ZoneAlarm (all free)or Linux or FreeBSD and you get secured fortess as Mac.
———–
Dell recommends Windows® XP Professional
Print this page Close
Print Summary
E1505 Dual Core
Now from
$1,024
As low as $25/month1
Apply Now | Learn More
My Selections All Options
E1505 Dual Core
Date 5/17/2006 8:11:53 AM Central Standard Time
Inspiron E1505:
Intel® Core™ Duo processor T2300 (2MB Cache/1.66GHz/667MHz FSB) KD16HN [222-1326] 1
Operating System (Office software not included):
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005 WMCE [420-5924][463-2282][420-5460][420-5476][420-5755][412-0689][420-4830] [420-4928] 11
Operating System Re-Installation CD:
PC Restore recovery system by Symantec PCR [464-5503] 135
LCD Panel:
15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA Display 15XGA [320-4650] 2
Memory:
1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 2 Dimm 1G2D [311-5776] 3
Hard Drive:
100GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive 100GB [341-3109] 8
Combo/DVD+RW Drives:
8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability 8XDVDRW [313-3959][420-5775][420-5901] 16
Wireless Networking Cards:
Dell Wireless 1390 802.11b/g Mini Card (54Mbps) TM1390 [430-1628] 19
Video Card:
Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950 INTVID [320-4653] 6
Sound Card:
Integrated Audio IS [313-4217] 17
Primary Battery:
53 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery 6BAT [312-0404] 27
Office Productivity Software (Pre-Installed):
No productivity suite- Corel WordPerfect word processor only ICOREL [412-0803] 22
Network Card and Modem:
Integrated 10/100 Network Card and Modem INTNIC [430-0493] 13
Miscellaneous:
Award Winning Service, Support E1505S2 [465-1181] 82
Hardware Warranty:
1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr Mail-In Service, and 1Yr HW Warranty Support ST111RR [950-9410][960-6910][983-7607][950-3337][950-9057] 29
Anti-Virus/Security Suite (Pre-installed):
No Security Subscription NS [412-0850] 25
Dell Digital Entertainment:
Starter Entertainment Pack – Basic digital Music, Photo and Game experience SEP [412-0865][412-0856] 399
Adobe Software:
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 6.0 ADOBER [430-1048] 15
Edited 2006-05-17 13:38
Apple does not care much for Average Joe, so it’s pretty pointless to try to convince the average Joe, neither does it make much sense for Apple to try sink into their price range…
Edited 2006-05-17 13:38
5 Years ago, when I was working at a Computer Store, every salesman / tech had the latest and greated machine for pure raw gaming power…
After 5 Years of this machine, do you know what I see? I should rather say ‘hear’ because when it boot up, it’s like an airplane is preparing to liftoff!
I long to have a REALLY quiet computer that doesn’t heat too much (But can play all my legacy games and somewhat newer games) that I can enjoy when I come home from a hard’s day of work!
Alienware or any other premium manufacturer offers great machine that are really powerful, but I doubt they are as quiet as a an Intel iMac!
I don’t not yet have an iMac at home, but I think that next Christmas, it will be a gift from me to me! That way I will be able to kick my old gaming machine with a quieter and more powerful machine!
As a bonus, I will have OS X and all the other killer apps! For legacy gaming, I will be able to install WinXP! The perfect trade-off!!
Anyway, my 2 cents!
//For legacy gaming, I will be able to install WinXP! //
“Legacy” being the key word, there … like, forget running any game post-2001.
At least, running it with any good graphics quality.
I run Quake 4 on my Macbook Pro just fine thanks. That is by no means a ‘light’ game.
i thought he was talking about running it on an iMac?
Anyway .. if you think for one second that running Q4 on a Macbook Pro is even *slightly* comparable to playing it on a windows box with a GeForce 7800 … you need your eyes checked.
Apple does of course have the advantage of not having to pay the MSFT tax that any other vendor pays. That’s not to say that it costs nothing to develop OS X but I am sure it saves Apple a lot of money
Oh you dont say, Apple is the only one who sells Apple. IBM, Compaq, HP, E-machine, Dell, Etc sell PCs they pay MS for windows so we pay a little more.
Anyway my sister got a Mac laptop, G4 I think & you can get a PC equivelent for way less or better for prob. about 50% the price.
Edited 2006-05-17 16:46
The discussion here isn’t about the PowerPC machines. It’s about the new Intel ones, which are much more competitively priced. Not so much because they are cheaper, but because their CPUs don’t put them in the bargain-basement PC category.
Also, actually try pricing out a laptop with a comparable config. You’d be surprised at how the little extras add up. The iSight in the new Intel Macs is worth at least $75-$100. Their quality certainly bests the $100 Orbit MP I have around here.
Most of the comparisons have by now acknowledged that at least the iMac and Macbook are comparable in price to competitive PCs.
With regards to the comparison to home-built PCs, I must point something out. The iMac is a very quiet machine (read the SPCR) review. A proper comparison machine should be similarly quiet. Quiet PC components are not cheap! You can’t use $10 cases with built-in $0 PSUs. They’ll blow the noise ceiling even before you start. Good cases are in the $50-$100 range, and a good PSU runs ~$50. The heatsinks built-in to standard CPUs and GPUs won’t cut it. Even on a mid-range unit like a 6600GT or X1600, the heatsink-fan is far too loud. Quieting this components down means budgeting another $30 each for the CPU and GPU heatsinks. Factor in minor touches (eg: $3 heatsink to replace the invariably noise one on the northbridge, a couple of $10 fans to replace the invariably crappy one in the case), and you can add $200 to the cost of the hand-built computer.
The iMac my mother recently got is quieter than the PC I built for myself. That PC had a $120 case, $60 PSU, $50 CPU heatsink, $40 GPU fanless heatsink, and a pair of $15 fans. Each of these components was critical in achieving an overall low level of noise (I actually pulled the plug on the stock GPU HSF because it was driving me insane), and the iMac beat that config despite $300 worth of cooling extras.
Maybe without all your cooling extras the machine would be quieter?
And if it’s really important one can always buy a Lian-li or similar case with noise absorbing foam.
If one looks around a bit and takes advantage of special deals – planning ahead- on mailorder you can still get a top case for around £100.
They’re not cooling extras. They’re replacements for inferior stock components. The Lian Li cases, being aluminum, are useless for quiet systems. Steel-frame plastic panel cases or aluminum/plastic composite panel cases, like Antec’s P180 are much better. You don’t have to spend a lot to get a quiet case, $50 is enough, and a great case won’t eliminate the noise of loud components (though the P180 does a great job of supressing HDD seek noise). The real benefits come from replacing the following components (in roughly the order of benefit):
1) CPU heatsink/fan. There is a tremendous difference between the fast, 60mm fan on a stock heatsink and the slow 120mm fan on an aftermarket one.
2) GPU heatsink/fan. There are no acceptably quiet GPU fans. The best bet is to get a passive heatsink for the GPU (which is incidentally what Apple uses on most of its GPUs).
3) Case fan. Some cases come with reasonable fans. Most do not. Case fans tend to run at full speed all the time, so they contribute to the constant background noise of the machine.
4) PSU fan. The PSU fan really only kicks in under load, but can add an annoying background noise. Good PSUs tend to come with good fans, and its important to have a good PSU anyway, for stability reasons.
Or maybe noise factor isn’t really that important to the average user. That maybe they just consider it part of using a machine. All machines make noise. Some are louder than others. But unless someone’s working in a church or test lab for insomniacs, what difference does it really make? It seems as if anything above a whisper is unacceptable. What’s the big deal?
This is known in most of the world as arrogance. An Apple is not by any means a Ferrari, a BMW, or any other luxury designer good. It’s a computer. The idea that somehow 95% of the viable market is undesirable to Apple is absurd, and I think it’s only macintosh enthusiasts who claim this is true, partially do assuage their own mixed feelings. Or perhaps it makes them feel like owning an Apple gives them cache – it’s not only a rich-man’s box, but it’s also anti-establishment. Rebel in a turtleneck sipping a half-caf sugar free soy mocha at starbuck’s, surfin’ the web, or whatever.
At the end of the day, the average *computer owning* family has a single computer, and they pay as little as they can for it. They don’t care if it’s sleek, aluminum, or teensy. If apple really doesn’t want this market segment, then they are fools – seriously. Like I said, I think this is whitewash to cover up the fact that apple sells a microscopic number of computers compared to Dell and its ilk.
At the end of the day, the average *computer owning* family has a single computer, and they pay as little as they can for it. They don’t care if it’s sleek, aluminum, or teensy. If apple really doesn’t want this market segment, then they are fools – seriously.
Obviously you don’t understand economics. Why would anyone want to compete on the no margin bargain PC space? I would say, if you compare Apple’s financials to, say Dell’s, you’d find that Apple is doing quite fine with their current plan whether they sell the same number of computers or not.
And like all PC fanboys; you failed to address the question; what happens when the hardware vendor, for example, Dell assembles this great computer with all the latest components, but finds there are issues with the operating system and drivers?
Apple just go off, nail down the problem and carrying on testing; Dell, they either have to ship a buggy product and blame it on Microsoft OR they plead to Microsoft to fix up a problem – either way, with the arrangement with Microsoft, Dell is screwed – they want to get the latest hardware out to the end user but at the same time they’re constrained by their lack of control over the operating system and driver development.
Most of you aren’old enough to know how Apple began. The Apple// series computers were realatively cheap PC like devices running a DOS style CLI. Apple then had 20% market share. The original Mac was a total market failure and almost destroyed Apple. It was only when laser printers and Quark were added to develop desktop publishing that the Mac found a niche.
Jobs wanted global dominance of the Mac but never suceeded. The Mac only became exclusive because it was a market failure.
BMW began in 1916 making aero engines. They only became a mainstream prestige manufacturer in the early 1970s.
Edited 2006-05-18 13:13