Linked by Universal Mind on Fri 6th Aug 2010 16:16 UTC
Apple The "Macs are too expensive" argument is one of the most tiresome and long-lived flamewars in internet history. Obviously, Apple makes a premium product and charges premium prices, and you can always find a computer from another vendor that seems to match or exceed specs that costs less. But if you look at Apple's Mac Pro line, and compare it not so much to other vendors, but to the past lineup of Mac Pros, you discover some very unpleasant truths that help explain why Apple is enjoying record earnings for their Mac line, but doing so to the detriment of some its most loyal and valuable customers.
Thread beginning with comment 435694
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Short term memmory. - multiboot
by jabbotts on Fri 6th Aug 2010 22:29 UTC in reply to "Short term memmory. "
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

My primary motiviation would be the legal access to osX on native hardware resulting in a minimum tripple-boot system (win/lin/osx) or maybe a fourth slice for BSD. Outside of running osX without the hassle of questionably legal hackintosh setups, the hardware remains more limited than what other vendors sell. Still though, the option to boot osX for those things not native on win64 or Lin64... not entirely un-tempting.

Ah.. who am I kidding. It remains a "great hardware, shame about the company it comes from" issue.. I've always had more issue with the corp policy than the resulting products.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm with you on this one. At my budget, I had two choices for an OS X machine: A used Mac mini with limited expansion and non-upgradeable video, or a Leopard license for the infinitely upgradeable Hackintosh-friendly system I already owned. A Mac Pro would solve both my problems, but I'm not going to pay more for a computer than my car is worth.

So, I now use OS X on a system I built, and I'm on the fence about it. I would love to be on a true Mac, but Apple doesn't offer one for someone with my needs (inexpensive, fully expandable, reasonably powerful).

On the flipside, this computer actually performs better in Linux and Windows than OS X, especially video-wise, and I'd keep it with those OSes on it if I did have a "real" Mac.

Apple really is the Mercedes of the computer world: Sleek, powerful, beautiful and trendy, but way too expensive for the average consumer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

I have a real mac, a Macbook Pro C2D 2.2 GHz, 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2, 8600m GT 128 MB.

But I also have this hack, with OS X 10.4.6, Athlon 64 2 GHz, 1.5 GB 333 MHz DDR, 6800 LE 128 MB.


I've came back to and used the hack since may 2009.

Enough said ...

Don't get a real mac, just a huge waste of money. If I had bought a PC back then for around 9000 SEK instead of a 20.000 SEK MBP then eventually I could had upgraded it and played SC II. Or afford a new machine.

Now I will most likely get a new machine for that game alone anyway but it will cost around 9000 SEK now to. And the MBP isn't that old, or well, wasn't in may atleast ...

The quality, system configurations and prices sucks arse though. So does Apple management (too little care of consumers and too much care about making big bucks), software development (as in the OS and their applications), DRM, vendor-lockin and usability of their products.

And if I could I would shoot each and everyone who will reply on this with "DON'T BUY A MAC IF YOU WANT TO PLAY STARCRAFT!", I didn't and I whouldn't. Though I paid extra money for it to get commercial applications and the possibility of games over Linux, BSD and Solaris. It's an issue with the machine, their configurations and prices, not with the fact it's a mac as such.

Reply Parent Score: 2