PDA

View Full Version : Macs: Ridiculously overpriced



guitarmaniac
June 7th, 2007, 09:51 AM
I was having a look around the Australian Mac website as Im finding OSX to look very enticing but I don't have the money to buy one.
Just for the fun of it I went to see how much a top of the line Mac Pro would cost.
And the grand total comes to...

$ 27,772.02 AU!!!

I seriously doubt anyone has bothered to buy one of these;)

B0rsuk
June 7th, 2007, 10:16 AM
Don't understimate snobs.

mech7
June 7th, 2007, 03:38 PM
Umm Mac pro.. the name says it all these babies ship with dual quad core.. 8 cores of sweetness :D they are purchased allot by pro's there are allot of them at the studio where i worked :)

Adamant1988
June 7th, 2007, 04:02 PM
I was having a look around the Australian Mac website as Im finding OSX to look very enticing but I don't have the money to buy one.
Just for the fun of it I went to see how much a top of the line Mac Pro would cost.
And the grand total comes to...

$ 27,772.02 AU!!!

I seriously doubt anyone has bothered to buy one of these;)

Find a PC with the exact same equipment (feature for feature, processor for processor) and then tell me that the Mac is the one that's overpriced in the equation.

I've done my homework on this, I can't find a PC anywhere that can match any of the Apple computers feature for feature, with the exact same hardware specs, for even close to the price. To quote The Kost: "Apple's hardware isn't overpriced, it's just more than you can afford"

Alfa989
June 7th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Don't understimate snobs.
What snobs? [-(

pjkoczan
June 7th, 2007, 06:58 PM
I've heard the "Apple overpriced" vs. "Quality parts" argument before and decided to try a little experiment. I customized a Mac pro from the Apple store, then "build" a computer (I used newegg, as I usually do) using mostly comparable parts. I couldn't find exact parts since Apple was occasionally lacking in details and brands, so discrepancies will be noted. I made mine "modestly ridiculous", meaning I maxed out things where I could, but I didn't buy cruft such as a fiber channel card, modem, and a second 30 inch display.

Apple (via the apple store):
- CPU: 2x 3.0 GHz Quad Core Xeons
- Memory: 16 GB DDR2 667 ECC Buffered (8x 2 GB)
- Hard Drives: 4x 750 GB SATA 3.0 Gb/s
- Video Card: Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT
- Case: Standard Apple Silver G5 case
- Keyboard/Mouse: Wireless
- Monitor: 30" display
- Optical Drive: 2x SuperDrive
- Wireless: Bluetooth/Airport
- Sound Card: Onboard
- Speakers: Apple standard
- OS/Software: OS X (not server edition), no additional Apple software preinstalled.
*** Grand total: $12,328

PC (via newegg):
- CPU: 2x 2.66 GHz Quad Core Xeons (2x $968)
- Memory: 16 GB DDR2 667 ECC Buffered (8x 2 GB) (8x $160 to 8x $235)
- Hard Drive: 4x 750 GB Seagate SATA 3.0 Gb/s (4x $250)
- Graphics Card: I couldn't find the exact one, so I found ones with similar specs (NVidia Geforce 7 series, 256 MB, dual DVI...and an ATI Radeon, 512 MB, dual DVI). Prices varied wildly, but I found ones most gamers would be proud of for between $100 and $500)
- Display: The most expensive non-Apple 30" cinema display I found was $1580, though for funsies I could possibly include the Apple 30" display for $1794.
- Case: Obviously varies. My case (which I like) was $50. There's a knock-off Apple G5 case for $50 (admittedly a pretty bad knockoff), and some of the higher-end ones for $300. The hard part is that case preference is based on taste and purpose. It's incredibly hard to compare cases, so I decided to get a broad sample.
- Keyboard/Mouse: You can find RF wireless keyboards for $10, but I decided to go Bluetooth. Those are around $110.
- Optical Drives: I found optical drives with comparable specs to Apple superdrives for $40 per. 2 of those make $80.
- Wireless: This was tricky. I found a Bluetooth, wireless-LAN capable card for $60. To try to atone for this, I also decided on a wireless router, which I could find for anywhere between $50 and $150 for a typical home model.
- Sound Card: Like the graphics card, this was tricky. I decided to go for a sound card that most people would find ok or better, and I found some 7.1 capable cards between $25 and $100.
- Speakers: Again, tricky. A good 2.1 system will cost you $100, and "frugal" 7.1 systems will range from $75 to $200.
- OS/Software: Windows Vista (which I will never have on my computer no matter how ridiculous, I just added it as a OS/software equivalent, in terms of price, to OS X)...$160 to $350. No additional software.
*** Grand total (remember this is a range because I couldn't find exactly the same parts): between $6,456 and $8,060

I know that there are some places where it doesn't "exactly match up", but I find it hard to believe that preinstalling an OS, OS X, assembling a computer, 340 MHz of processor speed, and mostly unverified claims of "more solid construction" (I think most high-end cases can take a beating as well as any G5) are worth between $4,000 and $6,000, which is 2 or 3 paychecks for me. I'd *maybe* say it's worth $1,000, and you'd have to get me good and drunk to say that.

And before you tear me a new one about newegg vs. Apple, remember this. Apple is a "direct supplier" (I know they don't make everything, but they make the systems), and newegg is the quintessential example of a middleman. I thought that buying direct was supposed to save money over going through a middleman.

Now, I know this didn't include shipping and handling, but in my experiences, those costs are a wash. In my mind, Apple computers are overpriced for comparable parts.

I welcome responses, criticisms, and justifications, but I think you'd be hard pressed to justify that much of a difference in price.

pjkoczan
June 7th, 2007, 07:01 PM
Whoops, repost...sorry everyone

Demio
June 8th, 2007, 12:42 AM
What you can't or don't want to see is that if you make your own computer, it's just 20 different computer parts trying to work together, with a OS that wasn't made specifically for them.

When you buy an Apple computer, you get a harmonious group of computer parts, all chosen from the finest quality possible to work together without any flaws and thorougly tested for that matter with a OS that was specifically tailored for them.

You could NEVER achieve the stability of a Mac Pro on a regular PC. You get what you pay for ;)

And Mac Pros aren't made for regular joes, they're made for professionals in the field of video editing, 3d rendering amongst other intensive tasks.

hanzomon4
June 8th, 2007, 04:50 AM
What you can't or don't want to see is that if you make your own computer, it's just 20 different computer parts trying to work together, with a OS that wasn't made specifically for them.

When you buy an Apple computer, you get a harmonious group of computer parts, all chosen from the finest quality possible to work together without any flaws and thorougly tested for that matter with a OS that was specifically tailored for them.

You could NEVER achieve the stability of a Mac Pro on a regular PC. You get what you pay for ;)

And Mac Pros aren't made for regular joes, they're made for professionals in the field of video editing, 3d rendering amongst other intensive tasks.

Please, Macs are great but they don't magically fuse OS to hardware to make a beast of system that's analogous to the union of Soul and Flesh. Apple sells expensive stuff because their goal is not the same as a Dell, to sell super affordable computers. I don't buy the notion that you can't make a PC that bests a Mac. You won't find a PC at officedepot that can beat a Mac, unless price is more important then polish.

ghandi69_
June 8th, 2007, 04:55 AM
I dis-agree with the notion that macs are not over priced... As the one poster already provided an example of with the newegg apple price comparison, I usually find that macs with the exact same components will usually cost about 1.5 to 2 times as much.

However, I do understand the possible benefits from having the OS "tuned" into your hardware, and for some people.. that might be worth the price.

igknighted
June 8th, 2007, 05:23 AM
I dis-agree with the notion that macs are not over priced... As the one poster already provided an example of with the newegg apple price comparison, I usually find that macs with the exact same components will usually cost about 1.5 to 2 times as much.

However, I do understand the possible benefits from having the OS "tuned" into your hardware, and for some people.. that might be worth the price.

Isn't this why we run linux? Tuning the OS to our hardware? Heck, if you run Gentoo you are more tuned to your hardware than a Mac ever could be.

hanzomon4
June 8th, 2007, 11:48 AM
I don't know what people mean by saying OSX is tuned to it's hardware. The OS interacts with hardware through drivers right? Unless they make the greats drivers for their hardware I don't see how it's any different than other OS's that have drivers for it's hardware. which is every OS. I really would like someone to explain this to me, any takers?

pjkoczan
June 8th, 2007, 04:24 PM
What you can't or don't want to see is that if you make your own computer, it's just 20 different computer parts trying to work together, with a OS that wasn't made specifically for them.

When you buy an Apple computer, you get a harmonious group of computer parts, all chosen from the finest quality possible to work together without any flaws and thorougly tested for that matter with a OS that was specifically tailored for them.

You could NEVER achieve the stability of a Mac Pro on a regular PC. You get what you pay for ;)

And Mac Pros aren't made for regular joes, they're made for professionals in the field of video editing, 3d rendering amongst other intensive tasks.

I don't think that argument holds water like it used to. If you look at the Mac I made, the video card chipset was made by nvidia (and possibly by ATI if you pick it), the drives probably by one of the big 4 (Maxtor, WD, Seagate, Hitachi/IBM), and the CPUs are made by Intel. This leaves the case, screen, and a few minor parts. Apple just puts them together and makes them work.

This again leads me to ask, is that worth $4000 to $6000?

Orochi
June 8th, 2007, 04:32 PM
Buying a Mac Pro is more expensive than buying the individual parts and assembling them yourself, but that's true of any computer company. If you look at a Dell or HP computer and compare what they're charging to the cost of building it yourself, it will always be far cheaper to build the machine yourself. But if you compare a pre-built Apple computer to a pre-built Dell (with spec's as close as possible) you'll see that the pricing is about the same.

So while Apple might be overcharging, they're not overcharging any more than the other companies do.

zekopeko
June 8th, 2007, 06:14 PM
apple laptops are the only one that i like. looks and hardware are superb.
the problem is that in my country they are some 30-50% more expensive then in US and we have smaller wages.
i would buy in an instant a new MacBook Pro if i could afford it.

Orochi
June 8th, 2007, 07:36 PM
Yeah, I was talking about their pricing in the US. I'm sure it's different in other countries.

Here's an interest /. article on Mac vs. PC prices: http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/07/06/08/1531234.shtml

Chrisj303
June 9th, 2007, 05:49 PM
*sigh*

If you think Macs are overpriced - then don't but one.

If you think Macs/osx make you feel stupid - don't use it then.

If you prefer Linux / windows - use that instead.

Adamant1988
June 9th, 2007, 06:02 PM
I don't think that argument holds water like it used to. If you look at the Mac I made, the video card chipset was made by nvidia (and possibly by ATI if you pick it), the drives probably by one of the big 4 (Maxtor, WD, Seagate, Hitachi/IBM), and the CPUs are made by Intel. This leaves the case, screen, and a few minor parts. Apple just puts them together and makes them work.

This again leads me to ask, is that worth $4000 to $6000?

That graphics card, processor, and otherwise has an operating system that has been tuned to take advantage of that specific hardware. An older mac could do probably twice the work of your typical PC today, and maybe even faster. Hardware needs an operating system that complements that hardware, and an operating system needs hardware that compliments it. The Apple gives you those both, and through that, superior performance.

Sp4cedOut
June 12th, 2007, 05:52 PM
That graphics card, processor, and otherwise has an operating system that has been tuned to take advantage of that specific hardware. An older mac could do probably twice the work of your typical PC today, and maybe even faster. Hardware needs an operating system that complements that hardware, and an operating system needs hardware that compliments it. The Apple gives you those both, and through that, superior performance.

First, I'm calling bull**** on the old Mac being twice as fast as the PC today. BTW, I don't consider Apple to be a valid source when looking at benchmarks, just as I don't consider Microsoft, Dell, HP, etc... There's an obvious conflict of interest. "Our research shows that our computers are the best."

Second, let's think about it logically. Hardware requires drivers to run. Someone has to write those drivers. Let's take video cards for example. The 7600GT and 7300GT are common video cards for Macs, but are also popular on PC, I'm using a 7600GT. More people use Windows than Macs, so therefore, more people buying the video cards are using Windows. So which operating system do you think they will design it for and do most of the testing on?

Unless of course Apple writes their own drivers. Then it will come down to: Who knows more about nVidia's video cards, nVidia or Apple?

This whole notion "Apple computers use hardware better" simply has no basis in reality.

strabes
June 13th, 2007, 02:08 PM
http://strabes.wordpress.com/2007/03/06/the-truth-about-the-costs-of-macs-vs-costs-of-pcs/

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 05:21 PM
First, I'm calling bull**** on the old Mac being twice as fast as the PC today. BTW, I don't consider Apple to be a valid source when looking at benchmarks, just as I don't consider Microsoft, Dell, HP, etc... There's an obvious conflict of interest. "Our research shows that our computers are the best."

Second, let's think about it logically. Hardware requires drivers to run. Someone has to write those drivers. Let's take video cards for example. The 7600GT and 7300GT are common video cards for Macs, but are also popular on PC, I'm using a 7600GT. More people use Windows than Macs, so therefore, more people buying the video cards are using Windows. So which operating system do you think they will design it for and do most of the testing on?

Unless of course Apple writes their own drivers. Then it will come down to: Who knows more about nVidia's video cards, nVidia or Apple?

This whole notion "Apple computers use hardware better" simply has no basis in reality.

No, actually, they use superior hardware integration. I didn't say BETTER hardware, I said that the combination of hardware and software in a Mac produces a stronger faster system. If you need another example of how this tight integration of hardware and software can allow a system to outperform a 'more powerful system' you need only look at game consoles.

When the hardware is hand-picked, with the drivers custom written to work well for X-OS to milk every last bit of performance out of the hardware, and the software is designed to take advantage of the hardware in a way that's friendly you get superior performance.

By the way, Yes, I can do twice the work of my PC that has 1 GB of ram, a 2.8 ghz processor, and an ATI Radeon X600 on a G4 mac, I know it, because I've done it before.

Alfa989
June 13th, 2007, 05:25 PM
http://strabes.wordpress.com/2007/03/06/the-truth-about-the-costs-of-macs-vs-costs-of-pcs/
"Knuth_is_the_man" and "TuringTest" have replied to the topic. I think it may be worth for you to check that out...
I'll also put a link: http://www.box.net/shared/dkdl12nv6n

As those guys said, next time you compare, match feature for feature...

Sp4cedOut
June 14th, 2007, 05:06 AM
"Knuth_is_the_man" and "TuringTest" have replied to the topic. I think it may be worth for you to check that out...
I'll also put a link: http://www.box.net/shared/dkdl12nv6n

As those guys said, next time you compare, match feature for feature...


Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6600 (4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Premium
1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 2DIMMs
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
24X CD-RW/ DVD Combo Drive
19 inch SE198WFP Widescreen Flat Panel Monitor
256MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio

I went to the Dell website and built this computer for $1,299, which tops the Mac's hardware stats you listed. Second, I went to the Apple site and looked at the Mac you listed. According to the website, it only has a 90-day warrenty and you have to pay another $76 dollars to have iWorks installed. Unless there's some other software installed by default that I don't know about, which could very well be true. Plus, if I was buying this Dell, I'd get Vista Basic since I'll be using Ubuntu anyways, which I think is on par with OSX Leopard.


If you need another example of how this tight integration of hardware and software can allow a system to outperform a 'more powerful system' you need only look at game consoles.

Game consoles don't out preform PCs. And I'd like you to post an actual benchmark that shows Macs perform anywhere near twice as fast as a PC, because what I've seen

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm

tells a different story.

karellen
June 14th, 2007, 08:58 AM
I'm not much of an expert and I've never used a mac, but however, $2899 for a macbook pro with 2.40GHz Core 2 Duo CPU, 2GB RAM, 160GB HD, 17" 1920x1200 LCD, NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT (256MB), dual-link DVI support seems a little too much. I mean...come on, for this amount of money you could buy a laptop with the same performances (toshiba satellite or something) + a desktop pc...
overpriced, imho

slimdog360
June 14th, 2007, 09:21 AM
Take a look at these two machines, one a Mac the other a Dell.

Its the middle one for $2599 AU
http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/dimen_9200?c=au&cs=audhs1&l=en&s=dhs

$2689 upgraded to similar specs.
http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/australiastore.woa/6164020/wo/P8CEy56BLVDg327px2A246Y6l8t/6.?p=0

If anything the Dell has a worse graphics card and a very very slightly slower CPU but a bigger hard drive. The CPU in the dell is a 2.13GHz intel core duo 2, the CPU in the Mac is a 2.16GHz intel core duo 2. I wouldn't take these differences too seriously though.

karellen
June 14th, 2007, 11:44 AM
I wouldn't pay more than $1000 for a laptop (as I really don't have much money)

DalekClock
June 14th, 2007, 01:06 PM
Well, actually, when it comes to pricing, Macs look expensive at first, but PCs are out of date quickly so you'll need to keep getting replacements every few years. Macs are actually cheaper in the long run.

drbob07
June 14th, 2007, 05:58 PM
First let me say, Apples are not "ridiculously" over priced. They are more expensive, and to some, they may be overpriced, but I don't think what Apple is charging you for is "ridiculous". Keep in mind overpricing is opinionated. To a rich billionaire nothing is overpriced. To average Joe, gas for his hummer is overpriced.

Secondly, the Mac Pro (the original computer in question) is aimed at Movie / Recording Studios. Apple is just playing the market game. They don't expect average Joe to buy these computers, they expect Studios who want the absolute best sound quality, and have very big wallets to buy these computers. They are not AIMING IT at the consumer market.

Thirdly, who would *fully load* the Mac Pro? You are getting 2 or more top-notch displays, when you could buy cheaper displays (albeit worse displays, but cheaper) seperately. Some of the things the Mac Pro has fully loaded are completely unnecessary and should be skipped. Who wants 4 Maxtor Raptor 500 gb hard drives.

And in closing. When it comes down to it, these are computers we're talking about.
They are meant to do *all things* for *all people*, as such there will be compromises. Apple's compromise comes in a large price tag.

Also, Apple only has 5-10% market share. They do not mass market these machines like Dell does. Dell can get off selling parts on the cheap because they order pieces in bulk and chug out machines on a daily basis. Apple does not buy their parts in bulk or chug that many machines out daily because they don't have many customers, and it'd be a waste of money. If Apple has 90+% market share it'd be a different story entirely.

karellen
June 14th, 2007, 06:11 PM
Well, actually, when it comes to pricing, Macs look expensive at first, but PCs are out of date quickly so you'll need to keep getting replacements every few years. Macs are actually cheaper in the long run.

eh...not quite so. PC's can keep up pretty nice if you don't have outrageous needs and don't want the latest and greatest...

Alfa989
June 14th, 2007, 09:33 PM
Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6600 (4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Premium
1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 2DIMMs
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
24X CD-RW/ DVD Combo Drive
19 inch SE198WFP Widescreen Flat Panel Monitor
256MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio

I went to the Dell website and built this computer for $1,299, which tops the Mac's hardware stats you listed. Second, I went to the Apple site and looked at the Mac you listed. According to the website, it only has a 90-day warrenty and you have to pay another $76 dollars to have iWorks installed. Unless there's some other software installed by default that I don't know about, which could very well be true. Plus, if I was buying this Dell, I'd get Vista Basic since I'll be using Ubuntu anyways, which I think is on par with OSX Leopard.

It's 90-day telephonic support, warranty should be 1 or 2 years...
Yes, you have to pay to get iWork installed, but the PC hasn't got any Office package included too...
Other software? iLife, some commercial 3D games...

And you have to add the webcam, the computer thickness, the sound levels (very important, as any Dell sounds just like a plane taking off), remote control...

kamaboko
July 1st, 2007, 07:26 PM
What you can't or don't want to see is that if you make your own computer, it's just 20 different computer parts trying to work together, with a OS that wasn't made specifically for them.

When you buy an Apple computer, you get a harmonious group of computer parts, all chosen from the finest quality possible to work together without any flaws and thorougly tested for that matter with a OS that was specifically tailored for them.


Huh??? So what's the difference between my Intel processor for Windows and the ones for Mac? You telling me Intel makes a Mac only OS processor? You telling me Nvidia makes a Mac only video card? Dude...wake up. When I buy a piece of hardware it states clearly on the box..."made for Windows operating system". Apple has the highest markup of any computer maker. Many many years ago I was duped by Apple, but then I woke up and realized I could get a better machine for half the cost.

3rdalbum
July 2nd, 2007, 01:05 PM
When you buy an Apple computer, you get a harmonious group of computer parts, all chosen from the finest quality possible to work together without any flaws and thorougly tested for that matter with a OS that was specifically tailored for them.

********. They're x86 PCs with EFI and an Apple badge on the front.

mysticrider92
July 2nd, 2007, 04:36 PM
Find a PC with the exact same equipment (feature for feature, processor for processor) and then tell me that the Mac is the one that's overpriced in the equation.

I've done my homework on this, I can't find a PC anywhere that can match any of the Apple computers feature for feature, with the exact same hardware specs, for even close to the price. To quote The Kost: "Apple's hardware isn't overpriced, it's just more than you can afford"

I guess it depends on what you want. I was looking at a Macbook Pro (the $2500 model), but then found I could build a barebones laptop on an Asus C90 chassis for about $900 less, and get a faster processor and video card, plus the ability to upgrade it however I want, and choose what os I want. You might not be able to get that price with a major pc maker though (e.g. Dell, HP, etc).

Warpnow
July 7th, 2007, 12:14 AM
Heh.

The whole "parts working together" argument makes no sense whatsoever...its like the lunatic ravings on the ignorant...

Adamant1988
July 7th, 2007, 08:54 AM
I guess it depends on what you want. I was looking at a Macbook Pro (the $2500 model), but then found I could build a barebones laptop on an Asus C90 chassis for about $900 less, and get a faster processor and video card, plus the ability to upgrade it however I want, and choose what os I want. You might not be able to get that price with a major pc maker though (e.g. Dell, HP, etc).

Let's not forget the time investment, and that if something breaks, it's your fault... there is no customers support for that :)

cobrn1
July 9th, 2007, 01:12 AM
So many point, so little time.

1) Macs don't last longer than pc. That's just rubbish. Like somone said, unless you _need_ the latest and greatest (ie, for gaming) than the modern pc you buy today will last you a long while. Macs are based on the same hardware - how could they possibly last any longer. I'll tell you what, the pc I'm using now is 7 years old - yes! 7 years old. It hurts to fun XP on it (as in actual physical pain) but it does work for internet, work, music, youtube, vids and soldat. The dual core pc you buy to day will easily last you 7 years more if you just want to do what I do now - they're only limited by the lenght of time it takes them to fall apart or rust to pieces... Macs rust just as quickly.

2) Macs do have a superior OS to windows - I find OSX very irritating, but even I appreciate its superiority. This is where much of 'macs are simple better' ideas come from. NOTE, OS, as in software, nothing to do with the hardware.

3) Dell put just as much time into making sure their configurations work too. THe only reason apple doesn't support more configs is because they are lazy It's less work to support less hardware.

4) Apple doesn't like to play on a level battlefield, so they created their own market by only allowing mas OS on 'mac' hardware.

5) There is not way that Mac OS can use the hardware better - that's just a lie. The hardware manufacturers know best, simple as. The hardware choices are for laziness and cornering of markets, not making them run better (do mac overclock their components?)

6) Dell do overcharge, it's true, but you can get some good deals with them, it just takes effort - it's the mid range where you get really screwed, just like with apple (although they screw you with high prices all levels). low-end options on dell are generally ok, and really higher-end options are always expensive, so...

7) It doesn't matter it apple have 5% or 95% of the market - a high price is still a high price.

Apple just annoys me, sorry, but they're nothing but a greedy corporation, just like Microsoft, only with much less market share and a 'sense of style'. Build your own pc and install linux, you'll save a packet and get all the functionality of a mac.

Adamant1988
July 9th, 2007, 07:14 AM
So many point, so little time.
I agree.


1) Macs don't last longer than pc. That's just rubbish. Like somone said, unless you _need_ the latest and greatest (ie, for gaming) than the modern pc you buy today will last you a long while. Macs are based on the same hardware - how could they possibly last any longer. I'll tell you what, the pc I'm using now is 7 years old - yes! 7 years old. It hurts to fun XP on it (as in actual physical pain) but it does work for internet, work, music, youtube, vids and soldat. The dual core pc you buy to day will easily last you 7 years more if you just want to do what I do now - they're only limited by the lenght of time it takes them to fall apart or rust to pieces... Macs rust just as quickly.

Actually, the old PC/Car metaphor applies here... Put simply, you're paying for what you get, if you skimp on the price your mileage will vary. If you buy a cheap car, it may or may not completely crap out on you at 100,000 miles, you really have no way of knowing. If you buy a cheap computer... 4 years after it's purchase date, you may see it just randomly die from a hardware failure.

However, buy an more expensive better brand of car, and it will last you longer and give you more performance for your money. I think a lot of people have different meaning of 'last longer' though... so I'm going to go through them

Physically lasting longer: Computers running windows will probably experience a harddrive failure before a Mac will (I'm sure there are exceptions).

In terms of forced upgrading: If you want to run relevant software you'll end up upgrading something. Browsers today can use a good bit of ram all on their own. However, Macs tend to be less susceptible to the whole 'forced upgrade' thing, since older macs are still very powerful machines even by today's standards.


2) Macs do have a superior OS to windows - I find OSX very irritating, but even I appreciate its superiority. This is where much of 'macs are simple better' ideas come from. NOTE, OS, as in software, nothing to do with the hardware.


I have nothing to add to this.

3) Dell put just as much time into making sure their configurations work too. THe only reason apple doesn't support more configs is because they are lazy It's less work to support less hardware.

Actually, Dell didn't custom code Windows against that hardware, they just put the things together with Device drivers for Windows.


4) Apple doesn't like to play on a level battlefield, so they created their own market by only allowing mas OS on 'mac' hardware.

Or maybe Apple prefers to treat the Mac computer line as ANY OTHER PIECE OF CONSUMER ELECTRONICS. I can't run iPod firmware on another mp3 player, I can't run my VCR's operating system on my computer, etc. Apple seems to take a different view of computers than we normally would.


5) There is not way that Mac OS can use the hardware better - that's just a lie. The hardware manufacturers know best, simple as. The hardware choices are for laziness and cornering of markets, not making them run better (do mac overclock their components?)

Hardware is only as capable as the software that makes it go. For instance, if the software is inefficient the hardware will be equally inefficient. This is why I can put Ubuntu on a computer with 256 megabytes of ram and see a major improvement over stock Windows XP. It's about having efficient software to run the computer.


6) Dell do overcharge, it's true, but you can get some good deals with them, it just takes effort - it's the mid range where you get really screwed, just like with apple (although they screw you with high prices all levels). low-end options on dell are generally ok, and really higher-end options are always expensive, so...
Buy a low end computer from Dell (one of those cheapo $300 models) and you'll find yourself upgrading before too long, because it will make you want to die. I guarantee the next computer you buy will be more expensive, and more up to snuff than the original.



7) It doesn't matter it apple have 5% or 95% of the market - a high price is still a high price.

Apple just annoys me, sorry, but they're nothing but a greedy corporation, just like Microsoft, only with much less market share and a 'sense of style'. Build your own pc and install linux, you'll save a packet and get all the functionality of a mac.

No, I won't get 'all the functionality of a mac', and the time investment is also pretty substantial going that route. With an Apple computer you have one throat to choke for complaining, makes it really easy to do. Have a problem with Ubuntu? Complain about it and you'll start seeing all kinds of finger pointing. The community will point to the original devs, the devs will point right back at the community, and it's an endless vicious cycle. Using Linux gives you all the functionality that a community that has no more interest in you than Microsoft or Apple will give you.

Microsoft and Apple are interested in your money. Linux developers all have something that drives them, but I guarantee you those developers didn't wake up one morning and say, "Man, I really think I would like to develop software for the masses for free so I can hear them bitch about the work I do as a volunteer". Some of them do it for the love of coding, others do it for the technology, others out of curiosity, but at the end of the day those developers probably don't care about you anymore than Apple and Microsoft, and even better, Apple and Microsoft have something to lose if they tick too many people off...

Redache
July 9th, 2007, 10:49 PM
Mac's aren't aimed at the mainstream, remember this and it will serve you well.

An Imac is a Small Form Factor PC, no more, no less.

Tell me which Dell has a whole computer built into a footprint that isn't much larger than a screen?.

Macbooks are made out of Aluminium, Have some fancy technology attached, have pretty high quality screen's and are made to work with only one OS. They tend to compete well with high end Laptops on price and performance. I think everyone needs to realize Apple are more like a Boutique computer seller, they have no interest in the low to mid range because it's already saturated. They offer something different, something more aesthetic to the end user. Some people want a cheap handbag from Argos, others want a top of the range Gucci which doesn't really have much more functionality, but aesthetically and for fashionable reasoning a Gucci holds far more water.

On the Other hand Dell and HP do manufacture cheap computers, but they are aimed squarely at the mainstream. The mainstream need something that they can afford, not something that comes at a premium. Fair enough most of the low-mid range PC's from these companies are utter crap, but that's not the point, it's something to get started with.

Mac found a niche, they carved that niche and they have stuck with it because it works for them.

They are greedy, every corporation in the world is greedy, even charity organizations, saying that a corporation isn't is utter crap because it's human nature to want more and more until we consume.

I agree with Adamant on Linux Dev's. Most of them are doing this for themselves not for the greater good, yes its nice to have a reality where they are doing it to benefit mankind but mostly it's to gain experience and to further their career's. Practice makes perfect and what better place to practice than with a community of tech's?

I don't adore Mac's, they're cool, I'd buy one if I was looking for a Laptop but the fact is I'm sick of seeing misinformed information being pissed out about them. Mac are NO MORE expensive than other manufacturers. Ok an Imac costs more than most of the other companies offerings, but it's also an SFF PC rather than a standard PC which grants it a higher premium since it is much more expensive to make (Plus if we compare it to Shuttle, we'd see an identical pricing structure)

P.S. EFI is actually pretty huge to have in a computer. Microsoft refused it and Intel managed to get Apple to use it in their computers, so by the time Microsoft decide that they can recode Windows to play nice with it it'll be perfected. BIOS is nearly a quarter of a century old, we need a replacement sooner rather than later.

cobrn1
July 9th, 2007, 11:15 PM
Actually, the old PC/Car metaphor applies here...

True, as apple tend to use decnet parts a mac will last londer than a pc using crappy parts, but dell don't use underpar parts, so really, macs don't last any longer. like you say, you get what you payfor (hardware wise).


Physically lasting longer: Computers running windows will probably experience a harddrive failure before a Mac will (I'm sure there are exceptions).

That's interesting, and hadn't crossed my mind. I guess if they use a file system that doesn't tax the harddrive as much as normal then they could last longer, but other than not having to defragment i doubt you'd see any real life difference in terms of lifespan...



In terms of forced upgrading: If you want to run relevant software you'll end up upgrading something. Browsers today can use a good bit of ram all on their own. However, Macs tend to be less susceptible to the whole 'forced upgrade' thing, since older macs are still very powerful machines even by today's standards.

The powerfulness (?) of older macs is due to their superior and less bloated OS. My seven year old pc (733Mhz CPU, 128MB RAM) can run XP painfully, or can run ubuntu really well. No gaming on eitherside, but the ubuntu OS would keep the pc useful for a long time, just as you describe with macs. Ultimately, the hardware will become too outdated in bothcases...



Actually, Dell didn't custom code Windows against that hardware, they just put the things together with Device drivers for Windows.

That's fair enough, they do slightly less work getting the pc together as they don't have to do any of the coding, but they do offer far more options and the ability to customise, where as apple doesn't. And all the dell options just workTM too.



Or maybe Apple prefers to treat the Mac computer line as ANY OTHER PIECE OF CONSUMER ELECTRONICS. I can't run iPod firmware on another mp3 player, I can't run my VCR's operating system on my computer, etc. Apple seems to take a different view of computers than we normally would.

Interesting, but if it is their view then i believe it's outdated. Considering that I can run linux on my harddrive, in the BIOS, on my router, on my phone, on my ps2...list goes on... soon i'll be running it on my toaster... ;-)

The model doesn't really work for PC's given that fact that I can cobble togetther a pc from it's components, whereas I can't for a phone. The pc is an inherently different market to the other electrical items' markets. This is especially true when you consider that the hardware is exactly the same. While I see the point you're getting at, (and it is a good one, i'll admit), it doesn't change the fact that they've decided to create their own battlefield to play on, instead of playing on the same one as everybody else. It's a typically apple thing to do, but they've had some success with it...



Buy a low end computer from Dell (one of those cheapo $300 models) and you'll find yourself upgrading before too long, because it will make you want to die. I guarantee the next computer you buy will be more expensive, and more up to snuff than the original.

Not so sure, you can get a resonably good pc for quite cheap these days (even from dell) and given the current level of technology, unless you are going to be gaming or using vista, it should be fine. Example, a pentium D 805 (?), ie, the cheap dual core +512MB ram. Not the best, but it would be absolutely fine for almost anything. I use pc like this (-the dual core CPU) at college and they can do everything fine, even play media, youtube, etc... Because of where we are today with technology, a cheap pc is still a very powerful piece of equipment.




No, I won't get 'all the functionality of a mac', and the time investment is also pretty substantial going that route. With an Apple computer you have one throat to choke for complaining, makes it really easy to do. Have a problem with Ubuntu? Complain about it and you'll start seeing all kinds of finger pointing. The community will point to the original devs, the devs will point right back at the community, and it's an endless vicious cycle. Using Linux gives you all the functionality that a community that has no more interest in you than Microsoft or Apple will give you.

Microsoft and Apple are interested in your money. Linux developers all have something that drives them, but I guarantee you those developers didn't wake up one morning and say, "Man, I really think I would like to develop software for the masses for free so I can hear them bitch about the work I do as a volunteer". Some of them do it for the love of coding, others do it for the technology, others out of curiosity, but at the end of the day those developers probably don't care about you anymore than Apple and Microsoft, and even better, Apple and Microsoft have something to lose if they tick too many people off...

Fair enough.

IF, you know how to build a PC,
IF, you know how to do an ubuntu installation,
IF, you are comfortable customising your installation to look good, and
IF, you don't run into any major problems with the OS,

THEN you will get all the functionality sans the cost.

If you can't build then. well, you can't build...

If you can't even install or customise then ubuntu prob isn't for you anyway

If you don't run into any issues - can't argue with you there, you do lack the support of the distributors. BUT, I have dealt with MS support and found them to be neigh on useless. Don't know about apple. I've always been able to fix my problems (both linux and windows) by looking at forums.

If you are looking for help setting up on ubuntu then the forum is friendly. It's when you say ubuntu is crap, and _must_ have X that you run into problems. But there is a gutsy dev ideas board, and devs are listening to the community, ie, Xorg will soon be graphically configurable, support dual monitors, hotplugging, etc...

MS and apple listen staright to the customers (even tho MS implemented DRM which we didn't want), linux is made by the community, so it tend to reflect what features you want, ie, compiz.

It's true that many on the forum don't care if the market share increases (and there for what new people think), many do - i'm realistic enough to realise that we _need_ more market share, and I like to see new people come aboard to a better OS and way of thinking. I'm interested in new people and what they think, their suggestions, etc. Just the people who aren't are very vocal about it...

EDIT:


I agree with Adamant on Linux Dev's. Most of them are doing this for themselves not for the greater good, yes its nice to have a reality where they are doing it to benefit mankind but mostly it's to gain experience and to further their career's. Practice makes perfect and what better place to practice than with a community of tech's?

It's mostly true, but not completely, otherwise why are more and more gui interfaces appearing - why are things on linux getting easier. Lots of devs do it for them selves, some for work, some for fun; but some devs do it to fill a hole in linux, and that's how linux has got so good in the last few years.



If having someone to ring when you're pc goes **** up is important to you, then building isn't for you, but wither dell or apple do in this case.

Apple was niche, but they're really trying to be mainstream now, and that's where the problem lies (IMO).


Oh and acer do some really nice SFF pcs - ok, so the ps isn't integrated into the monitor, but that's a issue of personal taste... and apple _does have a niche there.

dasunst3r
July 9th, 2007, 11:28 PM
I seriously considered buying a MacBook Pro during the spring break of this year, but for the life of me, I just could not justify the $500+ premium for the "privilege" of running OSX. With that, I got a Dell and set it up with my combination of operating systems. When it comes to desktop operating systems, Linux has taught me to never pay more for hardware than I have to and to leverage old computers as much as possible.

cobrn1
July 10th, 2007, 02:38 AM
It's incredible how linux Just WorksTM on older hardware, and how it seems to bring it to life where windows was bogging it down...

Adamant1988
July 10th, 2007, 03:02 AM
True, as apple tend to use decnet parts a mac will last londer than a pc using crappy parts, but dell don't use underpar parts, so really, macs don't last any longer. like you say, you get what you payfor (hardware wise). Dell skimps in some places. I've had 3 DELL PCs crap out on me within a year of each other. It's like buying any other budget item, you save short term, but the low entry cost is just there so they can milk you for every penny.




That's interesting, and hadn't crossed my mind. I guess if they use a file system that doesn't tax the harddrive as much as normal then they could last longer, but other than not having to defragment i doubt you'd see any real life difference in terms of lifespan...

HFS (I believe) is what Macs use and AFAIK it actually is easier on the hard drive, meaning it will last longer.



The powerfulness (?) of older macs is due to their superior and less bloated OS. My seven year old pc (733Mhz CPU, 128MB RAM) can run XP painfully, or can run ubuntu really well. No gaming on eitherside, but the ubuntu OS would keep the pc useful for a long time, just as you describe with macs. Ultimately, the hardware will become too outdated in bothcases...

Which is EXACTLY what I said earlier. Strong hardware needs a strong software compliment to make it work the way it's supposed to.



That's fair enough, they do slightly less work getting the pc together as they don't have to do any of the coding, but they do offer far more options and the ability to customise, where as apple doesn't. And all the dell options just workTM too.

I didn't get the right to customize my cell phone, my game console, or my television, but those are all wonderful devices that I use and love.



Interesting, but if it is their view then i believe it's outdated. Considering that I can run linux on my harddrive, in the BIOS, on my router, on my phone, on my ps2...list goes on... soon i'll be running it on my toaster... ;-)
It's not outdated, in fact, it's becoming more and more the status quo. Your mp3 player, for instance. Computers are one of the very few remaining pieces of consumer electronics that you can take apart and modify to your hearts desire.


The model doesn't really work for PC's given that fact that I can cobble togetther a pc from it's components, whereas I can't for a phone. The pc is an inherently different market to the other electrical items' markets. This is especially true when you consider that the hardware is exactly the same. While I see the point you're getting at, (and it is a good one, i'll admit), it doesn't change the fact that they've decided to create their own battlefield to play on, instead of playing on the same one as everybody else. It's a typically apple thing to do, but they've had some success with it...

Prove that it doesn't work for PCs. Yes, you CAN throw together a phone. You can even build a laptop, it's just not worth the time to do it. Apple's way of looking at things is to offer you a GOOD but HIGHLY controlled experience, so there will be consistency. When you buy a Mac your Mac is virtually identical to other macs just like it. Put Linux on anything and it's kind of a mixed bag, any number of things can go wrong (and do) on computers with very similar setups.



Not so sure, you can get a resonably good pc for quite cheap these days (even from dell) and given the current level of technology, unless you are going to be gaming or using vista, it should be fine. Example, a pentium D 805 (?), ie, the cheap dual core +512MB ram. Not the best, but it would be absolutely fine for almost anything. I use pc like this (-the dual core CPU) at college and they can do everything fine, even play media, youtube, etc... Because of where we are today with technology, a cheap pc is still a very powerful piece of equipment.

Ok, but when you buy a Cheapo duo-core Processor, how long do you think it's going to be before that processor starts to crap out? Buy Cheap ram and you think it's going to give you the same performance and power with the lifespan of the more expensive ram? Of course not. When you cut corners, you only hurt yourself in the end.




Fair enough.

IF, you know how to build a PC,
IF, you know how to do an ubuntu installation,
IF, you are comfortable customising your installation to look good, and
IF, you don't run into any major problems with the OS,

THEN you will get all the functionality sans the cost.

If you can't build then. well, you can't build...

If you can't even install or customise then ubuntu prob isn't for you anyway

If you don't run into any issues - can't argue with you there, you do lack the support of the distributors. BUT, I have dealt with MS support and found them to be neigh on useless. Don't know about apple. I've always been able to fix my problems (both linux and windows) by looking at forums.

If you are looking for help setting up on ubuntu then the forum is friendly. It's when you say ubuntu is crap, and _must_ have X that you run into problems. But there is a gutsy dev ideas board, and devs are listening to the community, ie, Xorg will soon be graphically configurable, support dual monitors, hotplugging, etc...

MS and apple listen staright to the customers (even tho MS implemented DRM which we didn't want), linux is made by the community, so it tend to reflect what features you want, ie, compiz.

It's true that many on the forum don't care if the market share increases (and there for what new people think), many do - i'm realistic enough to realise that we _need_ more market share, and I like to see new people come aboard to a better OS and way of thinking. I'm interested in new people and what they think, their suggestions, etc. Just the people who aren't are very vocal about it...

EDIT:



It's mostly true, but not completely, otherwise why are more and more gui interfaces appearing - why are things on linux getting easier. Lots of devs do it for them selves, some for work, some for fun; but some devs do it to fill a hole in linux, and that's how linux has got so good in the last few years.



If having someone to ring when you're pc goes **** up is important to you, then building isn't for you, but wither dell or apple do in this case.

Apple was niche, but they're really trying to be mainstream now, and that's where the problem lies (IMO).


Oh and acer do some really nice SFF pcs - ok, so the ps isn't integrated into the monitor, but that's a issue of personal taste... and apple _does have a niche there.

Developers who do things for free need a reason to do them. I'm not saying developers don't exist to fulfill a demand of the people, but chances are that if they're trying to meet YOUR needs they've got an angle.

Extreme Coder
July 10th, 2007, 03:57 AM
Computers are one of the very few remaining pieces of consumer electronics that you can take apart and modify to your hearts desire.
And IMO, I don't see any reason why that is supposed to change.
Just because some people can't use electronics doesn't mean geeks don't get their rights :P

Adamant1988
July 10th, 2007, 04:21 AM
And IMO, I don't see any reason why that is supposed to change.
Just because some people can't use electronics doesn't mean geeks don't get their rights :P

Geeks are ALWAYS going to want to take something apart and hack on it. That's what we do, it makes us feel good inside to know how our computers work, to interchange parts, to write software and scripts. Consumer's needs are a lot different than geeks needs, consumers are focused less on the technology and more on the experience.

I rest somewhere between the two, I am a geek of sorts, but I'm a consumer too. I always focus on the experience I'm going to have with something.

cobrn1
July 10th, 2007, 08:59 PM
Sorry, but I've now lost the will to quote, so you'll have to (intelligently) guess as to which parts of your post I'm referring (i've tried to put them in order):

Shame about your dell pc's - I've never heard of any problems with them, but if you buy cheap from a middleman you probably will run into troubles. Build it your self on the cheap and you would'nt run into the same problems i reckon, but as you say, in hardware you do get what you payfor generally. Buying _really_ cheap components is a recipe for disaster. The phrase cheap and nasty wasn't invented for nothing...



Fair enough about their file system, but I still doubt it will make much difference. Not having to defragment is probably the nices thing you can do cos defragmenting is quite hard on the drive. Linux filesystems don't need defragging, so no real advantage to mac there (except over win)



If the strong hardware needing strong software was what you originally meant to say, then ok. As I point out, linux has this advantage too, not exclusively macs (it's only windows that keeps on loosing outin these 3-way competitions... ;-) :D



Actually, I do get to customise my game console - I can change its cover (Xbox360), I can choose a different sized harddrive (PS3 and 360 i think?), I can run linux on both. Also can add extra peripherals, but they aren't quite in the same legue.

Point is, however, that your MP3 player, gameconsole and even your toaster are all customised to the purpose for which you're buying them - you really don't need to customise any of them. PC's are different tho - I really do need to customise them to my needs or I end up paying lots for crap I don't need, and then have to fork out more for extras I do. PC's offer this flexibility (and the flexibility to build to budget) - macs don't.



I don't really understand your example of not being able to customise your mp3 player. I can flash it with a firmware update - hell, if I understood the underlying hardware I could write my own firmware for it and flash it with that. I can buy addons to my printer to allow it to connect to a network via ethernet. All in all I think the market is moving towards customisability (sp?) not away from it as you suggest.




The thing is with pcs is that I can _reasonably_ and _cost-effectively_ put together a pc from it's components, whereas I can't with a phone - it would cost too much to make it. Given that the hardware is easy enough to put together and customise, pigeon holing it into a few set configurations and then giving it you own OS (all what apple does) seems like a step backwards to me. Thaty said, I do take your point that they are trying to offer consistancy - but that takes away from the abitily to customise that I hold so dear.
What you are saying seems to point out that apple's way of doing things is far easier for them (and I would suggest that you are losing a heck of a lot inorder to ensure that if you have a problem, it will be a common one - problems are nearly always fixable, it's only those incapable or unwilling to try to fix them that macs appeal to. Most home users can fix (or get a freind to fix - better than phoning the company) common problems. Companies have network admins to do this. Apple users... don't worry, cos nothing can go wrong and if it does you're buggered anyway. THIs is why mac users are perceived to be less technically adept. It's nice not to worry about problems, but I think you lose too much for it since it's normally easy to fix the problems that do arise anyway. Even xorg config is ok once you know what to do (get help on this formum!)

PS: sorry for the last paragraph - i know it's a mess, but i'm thinking while I write... ;-)

Back on topis, a cheap dual core cpu will these days last really long anyway. If I'm totally honest, I reckon it'll probably last about as long as the high end ones, it's just slower. Infact - it may last longer because it'll have less heat dissapation issued than, say, a core quad CPU. RAM is notorious for being flaky if you don't get quality, but in general, RAM is quite cheap (2GB at 667MHz for £50 - that's a bargain (and this is the _gaming PC quality RAM_ im talking about, not the value select stuff)!!! higher than 800MHz it gets more expensive, but if you're buying a cheap pc you wouldn't be getting RAM of that speed (you don't really need it, even for gaming the 667Mhz does fine...)

While generally, if you cheap out you will pay, you _can_ get a cheap pc that will last a long time these days... believe me, i know - it just means having to select carefully, just as you would 'shop around' for anything...



"Developers who do things for free need a reason to do them. I'm not saying developers don't exist to fulfill a demand of the people, but chances are that if they're trying to meet YOUR needs they've got an angle."

Sooo cynical, but in general correct. However, maybe their wishes co-incide with yours. Chances are if lost of people want something, one of them will be a dev. Hence we've got eye-candy inform of compiz-fusion.

Also, don't underestimate the corporate side of things. Canonical will still be giving out ubuntu free, but they do want people to use it. To do that it has to be easier to use, so they go about improving it in the way people want. More people use it, people are prepared to use it at work, companies adopt it +buy support from canonical and they get there money. Open source is lucky that we've got a business-minded front and the random developer contributor front. This is why linux is superior to window's offering is many ways and is getting even better.

Isn't it a shame about your cynical viewpoint... while it's probably true, it says so little about the human race... very sad indeed :-(




Ithink being able to do anything with your hardware is part of the experience - the ability to mod it if you desire, but also being safe in the knowledge that all the work's been done for you if you just need a functional desktop. I really think that embodies open source (i can't wait to compile a new, custom kernel, but I love knowing I don't have to - it's the best form of lego! :D)


EDIT: this took so long to write I my login timed out... had to log back in to post :D

Adamant1988
July 11th, 2007, 01:17 AM
"Developers who do things for free need a reason to do them. I'm not saying developers don't exist to fulfill a demand of the people, but chances are that if they're trying to meet YOUR needs they've got an angle."

Sooo cynical, but in general correct. However, maybe their wishes co-incide with yours. Chances are if lost of people want something, one of them will be a dev. Hence we've got eye-candy inform of compiz-fusion.

Also, don't underestimate the corporate side of things. Canonical will still be giving out ubuntu free, but they do want people to use it. To do that it has to be easier to use, so they go about improving it in the way people want. More people use it, people are prepared to use it at work, companies adopt it +buy support from canonical and they get there money. Open source is lucky that we've got a business-minded front and the random developer contributor front. This is why linux is superior to window's offering is many ways and is getting even better.

Isn't it a shame about your cynical viewpoint... while it's probably true, it says so little about the human race... very sad indeed :-(

I'm really not that cynical, I'm just realistic. I'm not going to spend my valuable time on something you're wanting without a reason to do so.

I don't think Linux has the leg up that people really want to believe that it does. Linux rests in a happy place far far away from OS X and Windows. The superiority of Linux is completely a perspective thing, and I think arguments about superior design and whatever are a glorious waste of time, each suits a different need.

Windows - Open Platform, closed source - You start off with very little and you build onto it with whatever applications are available.

Ubuntu - Closed Platform, open source - You start off with a lot but you can only add what some volunteer decided was worth the time to package and put in the repos. Going outside of the repos opens you up to all kinds of problems.

and as I've said OS X is a consumer electronics OS. You can only get it on Apple's systems which makes for a highly specialized OS and a good time, with little in the way of problems.




Ithink being able to do anything with your hardware is part of the experience - the ability to mod it if you desire, but also being safe in the knowledge that all the work's been done for you if you just need a functional desktop. I really think that embodies open source (i can't wait to compile a new, custom kernel, but I love knowing I don't have to - it's the best form of lego! :D)


EDIT: this took so long to write I my login timed out... had to log back in to post :D[/QUOTE]

sloggerkhan
July 11th, 2007, 01:40 AM
My perspective is that if your choice is between Mac and Windows, mac might be worth the extra money. But between Mac and Linux (on different but equivalent hardware) the Mac appears wildly overpriced.

My first computer was for some reason a Mac G4 tower, 400mhz, eventually 448mb RAM, 16mb ATI rage pro. it ran Warcraft III decently except on the bigger maps. My grandad now owns IT as his PC and it runs OS X fine, maybe with a few fancy GUI things turned off. It pretty much performs as well as any PIII 800mhz machine or therabouts I've ever used, though MacOS is, of course, much more responsive than windows, no matter how fast of processor you stick in the windows box (don't have the experience to say that for vista, but I'd assume).

However, the drastic superiority of Mac vs. Windows machines is only because Windows is such a load of garbage. In fact, my current Ubuntu setup reminds me of my old mac in many ways. In fact, I view linux desktops as the free mac alternative. They have the added benifit of being more visually customizable, something that is nice if you're artistically or aesthetically minded.

Anyhow, I'd never buy anything apple anymore. But for sure, once upon a time they were a great choice. (If you think about it, OS is a lot like Vista (only better, for the most part) and it came out like 6 years before vista and runs on 1/4 the requirements.)

cobrn1
July 11th, 2007, 09:36 PM
Ok, I think we amy have strayed alittle with the back and forth between me and Adamant1988, however, before we stray back, I'd like to say a few last things...

I could'ne disagree more with what you say abut open/closed platform. With windows you start with nothing, and you can add bits. Maybe for free, may be at a cost (maybe a large cost). You have no idea what's going inot your pc in anycase. In linux, you know what's going on to the ps, and know that it isn't trying to spy on you, phone home or restrict what you can do. It's also less likely to choke up on you. It comes with everything essential for desktop use, and any functionality you need can be found. I can't think of anything I've looked for that I haven't been able to find (for both win and lin).

Note also the recent article that sais that more and more devs are moving to linux - this can only be a good thing for us.

'Going outside the repos' - well that's what you always do in windows, and if you can't find what you're looking for in the linux repos, then you look outside them - you're no more limited than in windows. Installing from unknown sources is just as risky on windows and linux (well, slightly less risky on linux, but still not advisable unless you know what you're doing).


As you say, the apple way of doing things works very nicely for them (and stops them from competing directly with either windows or linux, which is nice for them). It also makes it easier for them to deliver a good experience.

THat said, they do deliver, and even tho OSX irritates me, it is far superior to windows offerings and it works with much fewer bugs - it's very easy for the technically inept, and for those that can't run a system windows system properly, it's great. Then again, ubuntu installation is very easy (and I used the alternate CD!!!) and if you really can't do it, get a more technically minded friend to do it for you. Once it's set up it has all the stability of a mac. Given that, I don't think they're worth the premium.

How does one set-up a mac, btw. Is there an install process. Even with a mac, i'd guess that the technically incompetent would get a friend/tech-minded son or daughter to be there wile setting up. So there is little advantage to the mac.

Overall, I'd say not worth the price premium, get you friend to set up linux on your pc instead.

EDIT: the point I'm subtly getting at is that I know why people choose a mac - you don't need to know anything about IT, they don't break (as much), etc, but as i say above, get a friend to install linux and you're in much the same boat anyway...

mpgarate
July 11th, 2007, 10:56 PM
I dunno if it was top of the line or not, but my ex-girlfriends dad had a mac pro

sambehera
July 14th, 2007, 11:05 AM
lets look at this from the perspective of linux usrs as most of us are...:)

the gnu/linux movement believes in freedom... and while we have come as far as we have in terms of performance ... also ensuring that the opensource alternatives are also the most reliable across a wider range of hardware... and also having the most tweakable OS's out there... we still have a long way to go in terms of getting end-user ease of use..... that is changing rapidly with ubuntu... more rapidly than with any other OS in history (that im aware of)...

now lets look at macs vs. PC's .... firstly we have get rid of the idea that PCs=windows/microsoft.... even though thats the majority... linux had the highest growth in marketshare in comparison to OSX and Windows....

now this is a personal opinion but apple seems more and more like a hardware assembler than an actual hardware producer... well back in 84 they did produce some things.... but if u look at how woz designed the hardware from the very start... he took parts from here and there and "assembled" a great design.... apple still does that but not that much for the PC-industry ...(ipods and iphones) are different things...

what does apple actually produce apart from the OS and the case? ... not much really...

the processor/graphics cards/hdds/ram/ all come from big corporations specializing in producing these parts...

apple seems to be more and more like the middle-man but taking all the credit... because the majority of end-users are not geeks who bother about the hardware that makes their machines run...

now getting away from the crazy ad-campaigns and publicity that apple gets...

lets look at the computer industry (hardware first) from the perspective of an economist...

a producer that produces the whole package can eventually cut costs of production by bargaining with raw-material suppliers and using all the other tools to ensure that it benefits from economies of scale...

in the computer industry .. its very hard to retain economies of scale because newer and better parts are invented regularly because firms are competing.... (and big investments like specialized production units become obsolete a lot faster than any other industry)

a singular company that owns the market... (what apple had tried to do for a long time until figuring out that it would be hard to ... and after the ipod adventure ... probably figured out that its not the right model for the company).... would have no incentive to innovate if there is no gains to be made from that innovation...
something like whats happening to microsoft... the rate of innovation in comparison to the rest of the industry has slowed down.... one would argue that microsoft does not innovate but lets just say that the increase in number of innovations (that may have been obtained frm other sources... or not) in the latest windows is less than that of competition... (linux)... apple hasnt really changed much with leopard either (in comparison to linux)...


MAcs are just like PC's designed by ppl with better taste...

freedom is in everyone deciding to build according to their own taste... not to be limited

the modern day PC is IBM's reply to apple's mini-computer... IBM needed to compete so they created an open architecture and filled the gaps with parts made by many other suppliers...

the rate of change in this open industry has been phenomenal... and apple took notice and is trying to change to that industry... intel processors came first... japanese/korean lcds will probably come later... in fact i really think that the lcds on macs are made by some well known lcd manufacturer (havent opend up a mac to know which)...

i feel that a competitive hardware industry with open standards (something that IBM pushed forward just because there wasnt any faster way to compete with apple) is the way to go...

apple mac products will always remain costlier than comparable PCs... simply because an industry that has ten companies producing CPU heatsinks will ensure the cheapest and best in technology heatsink .... whereas a single company (apple) that has a contract with a company from china that specializes in processor cooling solutions... will not need to have a cheaper heatsink... because it can simply throw the price burden on the consumer...

macs will always be inferior to an industry... (the PC industry)... apple has not pushed forward any hardware production industry (except the ipod accessory industry)...

as for the apparently superior software... OSX ... u can easily run it on a PC... with much less hardware compatibility than ubuntu linux...

btw with open compositing gaining ground there will soon be a time in which linux will look better than OSX...

angryfirelord
July 16th, 2007, 04:10 AM
I have a Dell 4100 that's 6 years old and runs fine (except that it has XP on it).

Ok, but when you buy a Cheapo duo-core Processor, how long do you think it's going to be before that processor starts to crap out?
Either 3 years after the warranty or it'll keep running. :) Intel's (& AMD's) cpus come of the same wafer. The difference between the faster and slower processors is that the slower chips have features disabled or things slowed down, but they all initially come from the same manufacturing process. It's very rare for a chip to burn out unless you overclock it.

Buy Cheap ram and you think it's going to give you the same performance and power with the lifespan of the more expensive ram? Of course not. When you cut corners, you only hurt yourself in the end.

I find that can be argued as well. Unless you buy the absolute bottom price, then your hardware will continue to run for a long time. PCs and Macs are still the same parts.

Last year, I built my PC for $450 and that runs perfectly. I highly doubt that's burning out anytime soon.


Ubuntu - Closed Platform, open source - You start off with a lot but you can only add what some volunteer decided was worth the time to package and put in the repos. Going outside of the repos opens you up to all kinds of problems.
Closed platform? Anything but that. You can add stuff from the outside, but most of that stuff is already in the repos, so why bother?

and as I've said OS X is a consumer electronics OS. You can only get it on Apple's systems which makes for a highly specialized OS and a good time, with little in the way of problems.
I'm probably being arrogant, but I'm still not seeing how OS X is that specialized. Yes, the hardware has more limited choices, but as long as the driver works ok, then I really don't see a need for Apple to be "specialized".

This is one of the nice things with Linux. Because there are so many volunteers, that allows for more hardware testing than a corporation could fund.

sarahsilverman
July 18th, 2007, 10:46 AM
what i call overpriced is that 3000 dollar 80 gb hard drive 1 gb ram fold up bulky desktop slash laptop slash piece a crap. but true though, macs are overpriced, everything shows it. technology costs have went down, yet the prices of computers and electronics either stayed the same or went up.

Alfa989
July 19th, 2007, 01:50 PM
what i call overpriced is that 3000 dollar 80 gb hard drive 1 gb ram fold up bulky desktop slash laptop slash piece a crap. but true though, macs are overpriced, everything shows it. technology costs have went down, yet the prices of computers and electronics either stayed the same or went up.
Dude... WTH do you get those prices from?

And again, Macs are NOT overpriced... Build yourself a computer with the exact same features that an iMac has and look at the price tag!

angryfirelord
July 19th, 2007, 07:55 PM
And again, Macs are NOT overpriced... Build yourself a computer with the exact same features that an iMac has and look at the price tag!
I have and found that the custom pc is cheaper.

Apple imac with: 1.66Ghz Intel Core Duo
512MB memory
60GB hard drive
$600

Dell 530s with:
Core 2 Duo 1.80Ghz
Vista Basic (would replace it with Ubuntu or Debian obviously)
512MB RAM
160GB Hard Drive
16x DVD-RW Drive
$400

Please do your research next time. If you don't believe me, go to Dell's site and built it yourself.

qamelian
July 19th, 2007, 08:34 PM
I have and found that the custom pc is cheaper.

Apple imac with: 1.66Ghz Intel Core Duo
512MB memory
60GB hard drive
$600

Dell 530s with:
Core 2 Duo 1.80Ghz
Vista Basic (would replace it with Ubuntu or Debian obviously)
512MB RAM
160GB Hard Drive
16x DVD-RW Drive
$400

Please do your research next time. If you don't believe me, go to Dell's site and built it yourself.

Youshould do some more research because this only works on low-end systems. On higher end systems, the Mac will be cheaper. A comparison on one of the tech sites a few months ago built a Dell to match one of the higher-end Mac Pros. The Mac Pro ended up being cheaper by over $1100 US.

Don't accuse others of not doing research when you have barely glossed over the surface yourself.

aysiu
July 19th, 2007, 08:41 PM
Youshould do some more research because this only works on low-end systems. On higher end systems, the Mac will be cheaper. Most people don't need a higher end computer. That's why Macs are great for designers and video editors and other PCs are good for ordinary web/email/music/pictures folks.

http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/06/24/the-price-of-apples-2/

mdmunoz
July 19th, 2007, 09:51 PM
Apple doesn't build low-end machines because they can't scale enough to make it profitable. They have a small marketshare and make high-end machines. Macs cost almost exactly the same as a Dell with the same specs for laptops, and cost less in the Pro end. Then again, Dells are an expensive brand. Macs probably o cost more than the average "PC," but it's nothing to be upset over.

angryfirelord
July 20th, 2007, 01:44 AM
Don't accuse others of not doing research when you have barely glossed over the surface yourself.
Perhaps I spoke too soon. Sorry, but I can be a little cranky when I get out of work. Let me try again:

Mac Pro:
Two dual-core xeon chips @ 2.66GHZ
2GB RAM
500GB SATA HDD
ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB
16x SuperDrive (a.k.a. DVD-RW)
OS X (duh!)
1 year warranty
$3176

Dell XPS 710 Red:
Intel Core 2 Duo Quad Core @ 2.66GHZ
Vista Home Premium
2GB RAM
500GB SATA HDD
2X Blu-Ray Drive
768MB nVidia GeForce 8800GTX
Integrated 7.1 audio (for some reason that was the only choice)
Junky Dell speakers
Standard keyboard
Premium Optical Mouse
2 year warranty
$3648

Granted, it's still not a fair comparision, but as we can see, the mac is now cheaper by $500. Now Dell fans can point out that the Blu-Ray drive jacks up the price by $500, but in price-performance ratio, the two are a lot closer.

However, I would never duke out that much for any computer. :)

aysiu
July 20th, 2007, 02:03 AM
Who has over $3000 to spend on a computer? Not many home users, I'll tell you.

qamelian
July 20th, 2007, 05:47 PM
Who has over $3000 to spend on a computer? Not many home users, I'll tell you.

Depends. Most of my friends are gamers who think nothing of dropping $600-$800 (or even more) just on their video card. I use my home computer to do audio and video production and restoration. All total my kit cost me close to $6000. If I had it to do over again, I'd go Mac instead of PC, especially since some of the software that was critical to my studio is no longer produced for the PC and is only available on the Mac.

On the upside, the inability to get Windows versions of the necessary software got me looking for alternatives, and as of about 2-3 years ago, all my AV work is now done on Linux.

ghandi69_
July 20th, 2007, 06:11 PM
Yeah.. there is way to much going on here...

But I thought I would just go ahead a point out a flaw of one of the arguements..

One person brought about a car analogy, saying you get what you pay for...

Not all true..

If you were to go out and buy any car, with the hopes of it lasting 200,000 miles, regardless of how much it costs, you would still probably buy a toyota camry or a honda accord.

Now, those are not even close to being the most expensive vehicles you can buy, but the statistics show they are some of the more reliable cars out there.

You could go spend 30 grand more on a mercedes benz, but you are paying for the look of the car, and the name. Thats about it. A benz is much more likely to require maintanance on your way to 200,000 miles than either the honda or toyota, even though it costs 30,000 more.

ghandi69_
July 20th, 2007, 06:12 PM
Depends. Most of my friends are gamers who think nothing of dropping $600-$800 (or even more) just on their video card. I use my home computer to do audio and video production and restoration. All total my kit cost me close to $6000. If I had it to do over again, I'd go Mac instead of PC, especially since some of the software that was critical to my studio is no longer produced for the PC and is only available on the Mac.

On the upside, the inability to get Windows versions of the necessary software got me looking for alternatives, and as of about 2-3 years ago, all my AV work is now done on Linux.


OT, but would you mind telling some of the programs you use on linx?

nick.inspiron6400
August 16th, 2007, 05:26 PM
A Dell laptop is cheap when you order it, later on the problems start. And when it comes to the end of the warranty, they won't fix it! Just keep "pretending" to change parts at the Repair Circus.

I had to buy a warranty upgrade, I knew they didn't change the motherboard.

Dell Inspiron Laptop: £570
Warranty: £140
Phone calls: £50

A MacBook is cheaper, and better!

Sporkman
August 17th, 2007, 06:40 PM
What you can't or don't want to see is that if you make your own computer, it's just 20 different computer parts trying to work together, with a OS that wasn't made specifically for them.

When you buy an Apple computer, you get a harmonious group of computer parts, all chosen from the finest quality possible to work together without any flaws and thorougly tested for that matter with a OS that was specifically tailored for them.

You could NEVER achieve the stability of a Mac Pro on a regular PC. You get what you pay for ;)

And Mac Pros aren't made for regular joes, they're made for professionals in the field of video editing, 3d rendering amongst other intensive tasks.

Plus there's the fact that he had to put in the time, labor, and provide the expertise to gather the components & build your computer, which translates to $.

slimdog360
August 18th, 2007, 10:40 AM
I love how they are even cheaper now.

macbookmaster
August 21st, 2007, 02:54 AM
wen u pay for a mac u get the best,,, they are amazing sleek and functional, u gotta love the macs... they last forever also

dasunst3r
August 21st, 2007, 03:07 AM
I wanted to buy a MacBook Pro not long ago, but I simply could not justify the $500+ premium. Besides, I picked up Linux for free, so why should I pay extra for the same set of hardware just to run a desktop operating system?

jrusso2
August 21st, 2007, 03:08 AM
wen u pay for a mac u get the best,,, they are amazing sleek and functional, u gotta love the macs... they last forever also

Maybe a Mac Pro has the best but not a macbook.

I have PC's here that seem to last forever. Most still have all the original equipment except hard drives and power supply and most are 8, 9 years old and I had even older ones I had to toss out when I moved.

macbookmaster
August 21st, 2007, 11:03 PM
Maybe a Mac Pro has the best but not a macbook.

I have PC's here that seem to last forever. Most still have all the original equipment except hard drives and power supply and most are 8, 9 years old and I had even older ones I had to toss out when I moved.

nice, i have both the pro and just the book... they are holding up good....... not too old yet..... but i love them all the same

bonestonne
August 24th, 2007, 01:07 AM
i do believe that Mac's are insanely overpriced for what they're running, but as many people have already stated, its just better.

however, i will still chose Ubuntu over OS X.

In OS X you've got different hotcorners you can set for different things, the UI is very user friendly, however when it comes down to what I'm getting "right out of the box" Ubuntu is a more complete operating system. i don't necessarily need an internet connection to use Ubuntu or get started, i have OpenOffice.org, Gimp, Firefox, Totem Movie player, various games, and generally i'll be able to get all my hardware to work. For OS X, after the install, you have itunes and safari, but for my use, neither will really suffice unless i'm set on just blasting music at the time.

Mac is just expensive, aside from that i really can't complain about a thing.

Apple.boi
August 24th, 2007, 03:00 AM
beg to differ on so many different things. MACS ARE NOT OVERPRICED and this has been proven by apple themselves. they just start there product line at a premium product rather then diversifying the range of products, remember they only have 5 computers compared to companies such as dell and hp. while on hp and dell why would you compare apple to newegg.com thats comparing a custom built pc vs. a retail company. if im not mistaken newegg is similar to tigerdirect.com. a better unbiased comparison should have been made to dell and hp with the most similar specs not a “two 3.00ghz quad-core intel xeon” (apple) to a “two 2.66ghz quad-core intel xeon” (newegg.com) if one cant go as high as the other you bring the other one down, that .44ghz can be the difference of 400-800$ respectively.
i also disagree on the apple not tuning there OS to the computer. apple doesnt offer all the components and offerings that windows based companies do, because apple can keep track of the stuff in there computers when they release MAC OS X. so they have no problems with people upgrading. So in that sense they are a custom tuned “default settings” OS. Something that microsoft tries very hard at doing and do a best job they can do to accomplish most computers, but with a larger computer base.
And here is my evidence: (trys to be unbiased)
comparing a apple mac pro to a dell precision 690 (the only one dell offers two prosessors configuration)
Mac Pro:
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
4GB (4 x 1GB)
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)
Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
Mac OS X - U.S. English
Grand total:$7,361.00 (free shipping, thank you apple;) )
VS:
Dell precision 690
2 X Dual-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 (3.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333MHz), English2ND
Genuine Windows Vista™ Ultimate with Media,
4GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS)
Dell 20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007FP Widescreen, adjustable stand,
512MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 4600, Dual DVI or Dual VGA or DVI + VGA
16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW, Roxio Creator™ for Vista UltimateHARD DRIVE CONFIGURATIONC3 All SATA drives, Non-RAID,
HARD DRIVE500GB SATA ll,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 16MB DataBurst Cache™
2ND HARD DRIVES500GB SATA II, 7200 RPM Hard Drive, 16MB DataBurst Cache™
3RD HARD DRIVE500GB SATA II, 7200 RPM Hard Drive, 16MB DataBurst Cache™
4TH HARD DRIVE500GB SATA II, 7200 RPM Hard Drive, 16MB DataBurst Cache™
GRAND TOTAL:$8,344
yes i realize they are intel dual-core not quad-core but apple only offers 2x 3.00ghz quad core intel xeon whereas dell offers 2X 2.00ghx quad-core intel xeon. Not comparable. Also i dont know the difference a (dell) 512MB nvidia quadro fx 4600 to a (apple) NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB. Would make but they are only a thousand different :P. in the end i much rather shell out the cash for a mac pro rather then a dell precision 690. *i like to note there is a compatibility issue witht the dell (no drivers for the graphic card in vista ultimate) something a tuned mac os x doesnt have :P. i compared there recent released OS from apple and microsoft. I am very poor writer so this wasn't the most elegant written up argument long-paragraph but hopefully school will help me with that (yes, im in high school). And i am admittedly a apple fan boy but also a fanboy of good products/software/OS/and everything else if you prove to be better then the rest.

aysiu
August 24th, 2007, 03:06 AM
Overpriced dodges the real issue--Macs are expensive.

Value for a lot of money isn't what matters to most computer consumers. Low cost is often more appealing. I know no one who is willing to pay $7000+ for one computer.

More details here:
http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/06/24/the-price-of-apples-2/

Apple.boi
August 24th, 2007, 03:08 AM
proud ubuntu user for 8 months now (no dual booting windows). just got a new laptop with windows vista on it (im not a hypocrite i just got a great deal) and i absolutely hate vista. the only thing that has me thinking about dual booting rather clean install ubuntu on my laptop is adobe dreamweaver and a couple of other adobe software that are important for my classes. and itunes * i love itunes* otherwise vista sucks. linuxMCE>windows media center 2007.

bonestonne
August 24th, 2007, 05:50 AM
beg to differ on so many different things. MACS ARE NOT OVERPRICED and this has been proven by apple themselves. they just start there product line at a premium product rather then diversifying the range of products, remember they only have 5 computers compared to companies such as dell and hp. while on hp and dell why would you compare apple to newegg.com thats comparing a custom built pc vs. a retail company. if im not mistaken newegg is similar to tigerdirect.com. a better unbiased comparison should have been made to dell and hp with the most similar specs not a “two 3.00ghz quad-core intel xeon” (apple) to a “two 2.66ghz quad-core intel xeon” (newegg.com) if one cant go as high as the other you bring the other one down, that .44ghz can be the difference of 400-800$ respectively.
i also disagree on the apple not tuning there OS to the computer. apple doesnt offer all the components and offerings that windows based companies do, because apple can keep track of the stuff in there computers when they release MAC OS X. so they have no problems with people upgrading. So in that sense they are a custom tuned “default settings” OS. Something that microsoft tries very hard at doing and do a best job they can do to accomplish most computers, but with a larger computer base.
And here is my evidence: (trys to be unbiased)
comparing a apple mac pro to a dell precision 690 (the only one dell offers two prosessors configuration)
Mac Pro:
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
4GB (4 x 1GB)
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)
Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
Mac OS X - U.S. English
Grand total:$7,361.00 (free shipping, thank you apple;) )
VS:
Dell precision 690
2 X Dual-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 (3.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333MHz), English2ND
Genuine Windows Vista™ Ultimate with Media,
4GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS)
Dell 20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007FP Widescreen, adjustable stand,
512MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 4600, Dual DVI or Dual VGA or DVI + VGA
16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW, Roxio Creator™ for Vista UltimateHARD DRIVE CONFIGURATIONC3 All SATA drives, Non-RAID,
HARD DRIVE500GB SATA ll,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 16MB DataBurst Cache™
2ND HARD DRIVES500GB SATA II, 7200 RPM Hard Drive, 16MB DataBurst Cache™
3RD HARD DRIVE500GB SATA II, 7200 RPM Hard Drive, 16MB DataBurst Cache™
4TH HARD DRIVE500GB SATA II, 7200 RPM Hard Drive, 16MB DataBurst Cache™
GRAND TOTAL:$8,344
yes i realize they are intel dual-core not quad-core but apple only offers 2x 3.00ghz quad core intel xeon whereas dell offers 2X 2.00ghx quad-core intel xeon. Not comparable. Also i dont know the difference a (dell) 512MB nvidia quadro fx 4600 to a (apple) NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB. Would make but they are only a thousand different :P. in the end i much rather shell out the cash for a mac pro rather then a dell precision 690. *i like to note there is a compatibility issue witht the dell (no drivers for the graphic card in vista ultimate) something a tuned mac os x doesnt have :P. i compared there recent released OS from apple and microsoft. I am very poor writer so this wasn't the most elegant written up argument long-paragraph but hopefully school will help me with that (yes, im in high school). And i am admittedly a apple fan boy but also a fanboy of good products/software/OS/and everything else if you prove to be better then the rest.

i really hate quoting that entire mess, but lemme tell you, Pro Macs don't have a 1333 bus speed. they have a 1066 bus speed. so you're Xeons of choice, thats why you broke 8k with dell.

simply, a mac is a pricey computer no matter what. if i could get a macbook for the same price as any other dual core notebook, i'd jump it, but i don't have 2 grand for a laptop, i'm still running a thinkpad T22 [although i need to hack its bios because i had to replace its original dead mobo].

you need to realize that we don't have multi-thousand dollar budgets for computers...i'd use an apple, but its just too expensive to go out and buy one that's powerful enough for what i do.

Depressed Man
August 26th, 2007, 02:56 AM
beg to differ on so many different things. MACS ARE NOT OVERPRICED and this has been proven by apple themselves. they just start there product line at a premium product rather then diversifying the range of products, remember they only have 5 computers compared to companies such as dell and hp. while on hp and dell why would you compare apple to newegg.com thats comparing a custom built pc vs. a retail company. if im not mistaken newegg is similar to tigerdirect.com. a better unbiased comparison should have been made to dell and hp with the most similar specs not a “two 3.00ghz quad-core intel xeon” (apple) to a “two 2.66ghz quad-core intel xeon” (newegg.com) if one cant go as high as the other you bring the other one down, that .44ghz can be the difference of 400-800$ respectively.
i also disagree on the apple not tuning there OS to the computer. apple doesnt offer all the components and offerings that windows based companies do, because apple can keep track of the stuff in there computers when they release MAC OS X. so they have no problems with people upgrading. So in that sense they are a custom tuned “default settings” OS. Something that microsoft tries very hard at doing and do a best job they can do to accomplish most computers, but with a larger computer base.
And here is my evidence: (trys to be unbiased)
comparing a apple mac pro to a dell precision 690 (the only one dell offers two prosessors configuration)
Mac Pro:
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
4GB (4 x 1GB)
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)
Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
Mac OS X - U.S. English
Grand total:$7,361.00 (free shipping, thank you apple;) )
VS:
Dell precision 690
2 X Dual-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 (3.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333MHz), English2ND
Genuine Windows Vista™ Ultimate with Media,
4GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS)
Dell 20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007FP Widescreen, adjustable stand,
512MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 4600, Dual DVI or Dual VGA or DVI + VGA
16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW, Roxio Creator™ for Vista UltimateHARD DRIVE CONFIGURATIONC3 All SATA drives, Non-RAID,
HARD DRIVE500GB SATA ll,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 16MB DataBurst Cache™
2ND HARD DRIVES500GB SATA II, 7200 RPM Hard Drive, 16MB DataBurst Cache™
3RD HARD DRIVE500GB SATA II, 7200 RPM Hard Drive, 16MB DataBurst Cache™
4TH HARD DRIVE500GB SATA II, 7200 RPM Hard Drive, 16MB DataBurst Cache™
GRAND TOTAL:$8,344
yes i realize they are intel dual-core not quad-core but apple only offers 2x 3.00ghz quad core intel xeon whereas dell offers 2X 2.00ghx quad-core intel xeon. Not comparable. Also i dont know the difference a (dell) 512MB nvidia quadro fx 4600 to a (apple) NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB. Would make but they are only a thousand different :P. in the end i much rather shell out the cash for a mac pro rather then a dell precision 690. *i like to note there is a compatibility issue witht the dell (no drivers for the graphic card in vista ultimate) something a tuned mac os x doesnt have :P. i compared there recent released OS from apple and microsoft. I am very poor writer so this wasn't the most elegant written up argument long-paragraph but hopefully school will help me with that (yes, im in high school). And i am admittedly a apple fan boy but also a fanboy of good products/software/OS/and everything else if you prove to be better then the rest.

If we can say that Dells, HPs, etc.. whatever are overpriced compared to building your own then why not Apple too?

Apple.boi
August 26th, 2007, 08:44 PM
Thats what im going for. the problem i have with this "macs are overpriced" things is when ever this argument comes up its the windows crowd that are complaining about it when they dont have a argument. i understand that people buy cheap because thats what they can afford. i just have the problem with everyone singleing out apple because they don't have as striped-down computers, why isn't everyone complaining publicly about voodoo pcs and alienware, granted they are a gaming pc manufacturer.
also i read aysiu aricle. i do agree with his article, i dont agree with the second article you linked to; reason being when he compared a dell laptop to the apple one prices being (dell) 940+ something *cant check back anymore* and apple starting macbook. he didnt take into consideration the dvd burner, bluetooth and 802.11N in the macbook. and when added in, the difference being 60$ without 802.11n yet. those are the articles i have a problem with.
i don't use any of that superficial fake fanboy crap where they say how mac os x and ilife and it looks pretty and steve jobs endorses it to justify the price in my argument.
i hope i dont come off on the wrong foot considering this is my first 3 contributions on the ubuntu forums. i do enjoy and use this forums alot for reference but i just get a little annoyed about this whole argument coming up. if you have that much of a problem with it to publicly complain, we should just make one gigantic forum on the internet to complain about it instead of scattered all over the internet.

Depressed Man
August 27th, 2007, 12:18 AM
Alienware is known to be way overpriced when building a PC that's exactly (or exceeding) their specs. It's kinda pointless to point that out since most people know that by now lol.

Dave Crowhurst
August 27th, 2007, 09:36 AM
I priced up a Macbook vs Dell and the Macbook was cheaper (UK prices).

OSX does what it does very well imho. You pay a premium for the hardware though.

It is quite funny how Steve Jobs is now trying to tell us how 'green' the new iMac is (hey kids, its made of Aluminium and Glass, these can be recycled) and ignoring the environmental damage that ore mining is causing.


There are environmental impacts associated with each stage of aluminum production, from extraction to processing. The major environmental impact of refining and smelting is greenhouse gas emissions. These gases result from both the electrical consumption of smelters and the byproducts of processing. The greenhouse gases resulting from primary production include perfluorocarbons (PFC), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), fluoride, sulfur dioxide (S02), and carbon dioxide (CO2). Of these gases, PFC's resulting from the smelting process are the most potent. Primary aluminum production is the leading source of perfluorocarbon emissions in the United States. PAH emissions result from the manufacture of anodes for smelters and during the electrolytic process. Sulfur dioxide and sodium fluoride are emitted from smelters and electrical plants. SO2 is one of the primary precursors of acid rain. CO2 emissions occur during smelting and result from the consumption of carbon anodes and from PFC emissions.

Yeah, way to 'Green My Apple' Steve ](*,)

treis
September 1st, 2007, 02:22 AM
Ok, but when you buy a Cheapo duo-core Processor, how long do you think it's going to be before that processor starts to crap out? Buy Cheap ram and you think it's going to give you the same performance and power with the lifespan of the more expensive ram? Of course not. When you cut corners, you only hurt yourself in the end.


I'm confused here. Do you think Intel has one pile of processors for Dell/HP/etc. and another pile for Apple? Because they don't. Another chink in your argument, and I am sure something that you will find surprising, is that the company that manufacturers some of Apple's Laptops also manufactures laptops for HP.

Hon Hai (http://www.businessweek.com/it100/2005/company/HONHI.htm)
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/11/14/afx3175021.html

ASUStek manufactures the rest of Apple's laptops and you can buy systems from them. All of the big computer companies contract out their manufacturing to Asian companies. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you could walk into a factory and see Apple's being made on one line and HP's being made on the other. Same workers, same equipment, and the same quality.

Can you also give an example of Apple writing it's software for specific hardware?

karellen
September 2nd, 2007, 08:24 AM
I don't know about others but I wouldn't pay more than $1000 for a computer (be it a PC or a Mac...)

Alfa989
September 3rd, 2007, 03:00 PM
I'm confused here. Do you think Intel has one pile of processors for Dell/HP/etc. and another pile for Apple?

For example, the Mac Pro's Xeon is Apple-only...


Can you also give an example of Apple writing it's software for specific hardware?

Dunno... OS X being for PowerPC? The best Wi-Fi support out there, thanks to writing it's software for a specific hardware, thing like that, you know...

treis
September 4th, 2007, 01:07 AM
For example, the Mac Pro's Xeon is Apple-only...

It's not Apple-only. Apple is just an early order customer. Those processors will be available to everyone soon. Besides, that's not what you said. You said that if you went with a cheapo dual core processor that it would crap out earlier. Do you think there is a difference between an Apple core 2 duo processor and one that Dell gets?




Dunno... OS X being for PowerPC? The best Wi-Fi support out there, thanks to writing it's software for a specific hardware, thing like that, you know...

Wifi is an open standard. A Windows computer connected through an Airport performs no differently than an Apple one.

3rdalbum
September 4th, 2007, 03:00 PM
The reason why people keep saying that Macs are overpriced is because they ARE, and because there are plenty of people who claim that they AREN'T.

People don't complain about Alienware being overpriced, because there's no-one out there who refutes it!

Demio
September 5th, 2007, 12:02 AM
Macs being overpriced depends on your definition of value.

For me, Macs aren't overpriced, because for me they value what they cost. That might not be the same for you, but it doesn't give you the right to insult my opinion nor to flame me, nor to constantly state Macs are overpriced - it gets annoying to be honest :)

Depressed Man
September 5th, 2007, 01:19 AM
Macs being overpriced depends on your definition of value.

For me, Macs aren't overpriced, because for me they value what they cost. That might not be the same for you, but it doesn't give you the right to insult my opinion nor to flame me, nor to constantly state Macs are overpriced - it gets annoying to be honest :)

I agree with you. Overprice simply depends on how much value it brings to a person (learning that in consumer behavior right now but I already know that). But at the same time when a person is refuting that it's overpriced simply based on the part cost and what not..

Well then that can be proven to be true.

seoushi
September 5th, 2007, 02:01 PM
I really don't think they are over priced. They do over charge for upgrades (ram, hard drives and video cards) however all of those can be bought elsewhere for much cheaper. If you configure a base system which is the processor you want and then minimum everything else you actually get quite a deal.
I looked on newegg and got the cheapest components that mimic the mac and it was 2,752.94 (without a case) and the mac was 2,499. For reference I used the 2.66 processor since I can't seem to find a 3.0ghz quad core anywhere. When I got my mac pro it was about 1800 for two dual core 2.0ghz, 2gb of ram, 7300gt and 250gb hd but then again I got the student discount (-300 bucks).
Anyways my point was that upgrades from apple is where all the overpricing comes in, if your willing to upgrade it yourself you can actually save money then if you were going to build it yourself.

Depressed Man
September 5th, 2007, 04:00 PM
I think that's the same for most computers and laptops though. My cousin recently got a new Dell Laptop for school and he just found it cheaper to buy the laptop with 1 GB and throw in the extra 3 GBs himself (even though I told him anything above 2 was useless right now)

Sp4cedOut
September 5th, 2007, 06:15 PM
I'm confused here. Do you think Intel has one pile of processors for Dell/HP/etc. and another pile for Apple? Because they don't. Another chink in your argument, and I am sure something that you will find surprising, is that the company that manufacturers some of Apple's Laptops also manufactures laptops for HP.

Hon Hai (http://www.businessweek.com/it100/2005/company/HONHI.htm)
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/11/14/afx3175021.html

ASUStek manufactures the rest of Apple's laptops and you can buy systems from them. All of the big computer companies contract out their manufacturing to Asian companies. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you could walk into a factory and see Apple's being made on one line and HP's being made on the other. Same workers, same equipment, and the same quality.

Can you also give an example of Apple writing it's software for specific hardware?

:lolflag:

I have an ASUSTek Motherboard, BTW. The P5N-E, a good MOBO, I'd recommend it.

cprofitt
September 8th, 2007, 05:17 AM
That graphics card, processor, and otherwise has an operating system that has been tuned to take advantage of that specific hardware. An older mac could do probably twice the work of your typical PC today, and maybe even faster. Hardware needs an operating system that complements that hardware, and an operating system needs hardware that compliments it. The Apple gives you those both, and through that, superior performance.

Superior performance?

Can you link to a credible source that will support that assertion?

cprofitt
September 8th, 2007, 05:31 AM
Well, actually, when it comes to pricing, Macs look expensive at first, but PCs are out of date quickly so you'll need to keep getting replacements every few years. Macs are actually cheaper in the long run.

?

Why do Macs not go out of date quickly?

Is that because Apple upgrades their OS more slowly than Microsoft?

I don't get what people don't understand... PCs don't get out of date unless one is a die-hard gamer... in which case an Xbox (not an Xbox360) out performs a Mac... because there are actually games for it.

Alfa989
September 8th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Wifi is an open standard. A Windows computer connected through an Airport performs no differently than an Apple one.
Wi-Fi support means the card and the drivers... NOT the base station!
Sorry, but OS X just runs circles around every other OS in terms of Wi-Fi support... :)

the.dark.lord
September 8th, 2007, 04:57 PM
Wi-Fi support means the card and the drivers... NOT the base station!
Sorry, but OS X just runs circles around every other OS in terms of Wi-Fi support... :)

can you back your claim up?

aysiu
September 8th, 2007, 05:04 PM
can you back your claim up?
I certainly can't. In our household, Ubuntu on my laptop can do WEP, WPA, and WPA2. My wife's Powerbook can handle only WEP. If we try WPA or WPA2, the connection on her Mac will continually drop. So we're using insecure wireless thanks to OS X "run[ning] circles around every other OS in terms of Wi-Fi support."

And she's not the only one:
Topic : Can't connect to WPA wireless network (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4939213)
WPA connection won't work! (http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=32264)

julian67
September 8th, 2007, 05:51 PM
I haven't seen anything better than nm-applet with compatible wireless. It beats all the MS and 3rd party Windows tools I used and I can't see any disadvantage compared to the Mac.

the.dark.lord
September 9th, 2007, 08:47 AM
I haven't seen anything better than nm-applet with compatible wireless. It beats all the MS and 3rd party Windows tools I used and I can't see any disadvantage compared to the Mac.

It beats the heck outta OS X too. WiFi works better on my iMac with Ubuntu, than OS X.

Frak
September 9th, 2007, 04:11 PM
You could NEVER achieve the stability of a Mac Pro on a regular PC.

Wow, I just proved that wrong ;)

Frak
September 9th, 2007, 04:14 PM
?

Why do Macs not go out of date quickly?

Is that because Apple upgrades their OS more slowly than Microsoft?

I don't get what people don't understand... PCs don't get out of date unless one is a die-hard gamer... in which case an Xbox (not an Xbox360) out performs a Mac... because there are actually games for it.
Mac's update every 6 months.

Demio
September 11th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Wow, I just proved that wrong ;)
Huh?

Frak
September 11th, 2007, 11:40 PM
I've been unable to crash OS X. I run it on an HP Vectra, and I own a new Mac Pro. They both run 10.4.10 (I patched the disc that came with the Mac) and my PC runs faster and is as stable as its Mac counterpart.

darksidedude
September 11th, 2007, 11:42 PM
well your not suposed to run OS X on a pc, the hardware for a MAc is not the best part, THe OS is, all the hardware for mac now is just pc hardware, cept for the TPM, the OS is what makes the difference

dynamicv
September 12th, 2007, 12:48 PM
I certainly can't. In our household, Ubuntu on my laptop can do WEP, WPA, and WPA2. My wife's Powerbook can handle only WEP. If we try WPA or WPA2, the connection on her Mac will continually drop. So we're using insecure wireless thanks to OS X "run[ning] circles around every other OS in terms of Wi-Fi support."

And she's not the only one:
Topic : Can't connect to WPA wireless network (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4939213)
WPA connection won't work! (http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=32264)
What PowerBook is it? G4 Titanium or Aluminium?

aysiu
September 12th, 2007, 02:47 PM
What PowerBook is it? G4 Titanium or Aluminium?
It's G4 for certain. How do I know whether it's titanium or aluminum?

Wiebelhaus
September 12th, 2007, 03:04 PM
Honestly mate , you get what you pay for , which is why all my stuff is utter crap.

dynamicv
September 12th, 2007, 03:09 PM
It's G4 for certain. How do I know whether it's titanium or aluminum?
The Titaniums have two hinges for the screen and most of the ports along the back, whereas the aluminiums have one long hinge and the ports along the sides.

aysiu
September 12th, 2007, 04:13 PM
The Titaniums have two hinges for the screen and most of the ports along the back, whereas the aluminiums have one long hinge and the ports along the sides.
I don't know about the hinges, but all the ports are along the side. Should that affect the ability for wireless to connect to WPA?

dynamicv
September 12th, 2007, 05:00 PM
I don't know about the hinges, but all the ports are along the side. Should that affect the ability for wireless to connect to WPA?
Not if it's an Alu. The Titanium ones only had 802.11b. I was thinking that maybe you had your access point locked to 802.11g so the PB couldn't pick up on it.

But the aluminium models all had 802.11g, so the theory is academic. Sorry.

aysiu
September 12th, 2007, 05:11 PM
So what you're saying is that theoretically that model should work with WPA.

I believe that.

My wife's Powerbook would connect to WPA sometimes and then the connection would drop. Other times it wouldn't connect at all. I did extensive forum searching for answers, tried upgrading the firmware on the router, tried upgrading the driver for her wireless card... tried just about every trick in the book, and couldn't get it to "just work."

So now we're on insecure WEP.

dynamicv
September 12th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Hmm. I'm not sure what to suggest since it did work occasionally. Are you using a Linksys router by any chance? I've heard that the WPA on those is less reliable with OSX than it could be. I use a Netgear and never have issues.

aysiu
September 12th, 2007, 05:37 PM
Hmm. I'm not sure what to suggest since it did work occasionally. Are you using a Linksys router by any chance? I've heard that the WPA on those is less reliable with OSX than it could be. I use a Netgear and never have issues.
We use a D-Link, actually. I did quite a bit of Googling about D-Link specifically, and that's what led me to try upgrading the firmware.

I don't think it's a big deal. I hope we don't have neighbors who are trying to hack our WEP network (especially since there are plenty of completely unencrypted connections in our area). I just don't like people saying Mac "just works" or has better wireless support, when our experience has been that any computer with any operating system will generally work and also give you some problems. My wife and I have had our fair share of headaches with Windows, Mac OS X, and Ubuntu.

Ludford
October 3rd, 2007, 11:19 PM
Yeah, Macs Are seriously over priced, I'm having to buy a mac pro for college and at £1200 it costs £400 than my desktop computer, for less hardware!

dynamicv
October 4th, 2007, 11:16 AM
Yeah, Macs Are seriously over priced, I'm having to buy a mac pro for college and at £1200 it costs £400 than my desktop computer, for less hardware!
Mac Pros are classed as workstations and priced accordingly. Check out the cost compared to workstation class HP or Dell machines and they compare well. Against standard desktop equipment, not so good.

shubox357
November 1st, 2007, 11:00 PM
macs tend to hold their value quite well based on my experience. My brother's dell, that has better specs than my ibook, came out around the same time, cost more originally, actually sells for much less than my ibook on eBay.