Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OS X is intuitive and easy to use, sure... and comes with a lot of built-in programs that are nifty, easy to use and actually useful (unlike Aol/Earthlink dial-up service and dell's easy backup service!)
So, are we dealing with software, or is it something in the hardware? I've just shown that the hardware is essentially the same, with a few minor differences... but, OS X isn't sold for normal PCs.
There's a software stability there, but is that a function of Apple's perfect engineering, or is it because Apple works ONLY with so very few differences in hardware, that they can tailor their code specifically for it?
Aka, is a Macbook better than a Dell because its better, or is it because Apple has the ability to so utterly refine their code because they've refused to sell their OS as a standalone for other manufacturer's PCs? Or is it better at all?
And really the answer to, is it better? Is dependent on the person. Some people really enjoy the one-click, etc. Some people don't.
Also, all of the laptops I listed, I gave a 3 yr warranty. So, there shouldn't be any other prices... as it is, to use the external video port on the Apple, you need to buy a propietary adapter, etc.
Apple overcharges for their product because they know they can. Because no one makes it QUITE like Apple. Plus, OS X doesn't work on any other PC.
Windows does. Windows even works on a Mac. For me, that means that Windows is the better operating system because its more diverse.
I'm just rambling now, but my points are as follows:
1) What defines value?
2) What defines value such that it overcomes $1000?
3) Why won't OS X work on any other computer?
4) Apple overcharges because of #3.
5) PCs are superior because of 3,4.
OS X is intuitive and easy to use, sure... and comes with a lot of built-in programs that are nifty, easy to use and actually useful (unlike Aol/Earthlink dial-up service and dell's easy backup service!)
So, are we dealing with software, or is it something in the hardware? I've just shown that the hardware is essentially the same, with a few minor differences... but, OS X isn't sold for normal PCs.
There's a software stability there, but is that a function of Apple's perfect engineering, or is it because Apple works ONLY with so very few differences in hardware, that they can tailor their code specifically for it?
Aka, is a Macbook better than a Dell because its better, or is it because Apple has the ability to so utterly refine their code because they've refused to sell their OS as a standalone for other manufacturer's PCs? Or is it better at all?
And really the answer to, is it better? Is dependent on the person. Some people really enjoy the one-click, etc. Some people don't.
Also, all of the laptops I listed, I gave a 3 yr warranty. So, there shouldn't be any other prices... as it is, to use the external video port on the Apple, you need to buy a propietary adapter, etc.
Apple overcharges for their product because they know they can. Because no one makes it QUITE like Apple. Plus, OS X doesn't work on any other PC.
Windows does. Windows even works on a Mac. For me, that means that Windows is the better operating system because its more diverse.
I'm just rambling now, but my points are as follows:
1) What defines value?
2) What defines value such that it overcomes $1000?
3) Why won't OS X work on any other computer?
4) Apple overcharges because of #3.
5) PCs are superior because of 3,4.
But hasnt it been proven that windows runs better on a mac than a pc so that does not make the pc better am i right.
Im not sure in price because after showing me those other computers do you think we are paying a small fee for extra features that you wont find on a normal pc laptop. I dont blame them at least we get the features in a sexy sleek, green package.
But hasnt it been proven that windows runs better on a mac than a pc so that does not make the pc better am i right.
Im not sure in price because after showing me those other computers do you think we are paying a small fee for extra features that you wont find on a normal pc laptop. I dont blame them at least we get the features in a sexy sleek, green package.
I haven't seen any such proof that windows runs better on a mac than a PC. My windows boot has been running solid for a long time now. The last time I formatted wasn't due to Windows crashing, it was because I added a new hard drive.
Since when does small fee = $1000? Are we paying for their 'green' compliance? Are we paying for the propietary software? What is it? And how does it add up to $1000?
But hasnt it been proven that windows runs better on a mac than a pc so that does not make the pc better am i right.
Im not sure in price because after showing me those other computers do you think we are paying a small fee for extra features that you wont find on a normal pc laptop. I dont blame them at least we get the features in a sexy sleek, green package.
Where did you come up with that? The hardware is basically the same, (some parts are interchangable) your paying the extra grand for the Apple name (in the provided example). I have nothin against Macs, if they were resonably priced I would have one, but they aren't, I may buy a used one down the road, but not a new one.
Dave, you've made this statement twice in this thread - please, show unbiased proof to back up these claims that Apples are "much more" expensive compared to a non-Apple version. And do such in terms of 'value' - not just price. Oh, and what is considered "much more" - 50 or 500 dollars? Thanks.
Pay attention, Radek already did that
Value is in the the eye of the purchaser, features and cost are the comparisions and, as you'll note, $1000 is the difference.
Why do these threads always end up this way, the question was would you purchase one, my answer was no, and the Apple fanboys get offended and start the tired old "there is no price difference, you get more features, bla bla bla. (none of which is true). Just use what you like, I recommend Macs to my customers that would benefit from them, but I'm a cheap bastard, no way I'll buy a new one
I haven't seen any such proof that windows runs better on a mac than a PC. My windows boot has been running solid for a long time now. The last time I formatted wasn't due to Windows crashing, it was because I added a new hard drive.
Since when does small fee = $1000? Are we paying for their 'green' compliance? Are we paying for the propietary software? What is it? And how does it add up to $1000?
Being the only Mac person here in my IT dept - I get a lot of flack from my staff. But I do recall one of them forwarding me a laptop comparison earlier this year that pitted 6-7 laptops running Vista. And the Mac came in first (using bootcamp). I believe it was a Cnet or PC Mag review.
Having said that - I think Radek has some great points. You definitely pay more for a Mac - the gaps in laptops is much more than the desktops (the towers definitely come it at a much higher level and are more comparable with high end HPs and Dells. But the Apple will still be more. ).
So - why are they more expensive? The first and foremost - the lack of competition. Second - they tend to be more innovative. I remember they were one of the first to have DVD burners on their laptops back in 1999, they also adopted Firewire quicker etc...
Now, neither of these two will get your work done faster... but some people will pay for them. And there are the intangibles that others have spoken of - resale value etc. Does it make them BETTER? No. But it does make them more desirable to some. And it really depends on what you do of course.
Personally - I think its really like comparing two car makes..... both will get you from point A to point B. Its how you get there and in what fashion that differs based on one's opinion.
I gravitate more to the Mac simply because I do have the option of running both OSX and Windows simultaneously via VMWare. My office is a windows shop, but most of my tools are *NIX based... so now I can have both without having two machines. But I also have a distaste for MS.... so again, it's all subjective.
Radek - you mentioned proprietary video adapters... Both my MacPro and MacBook Pro simply have DVI connectors..... and they usually include a DVI - VGA adapter. You referring to something else?
OS X is intuitive and easy to use, sure... and comes with a lot of built-in programs that are nifty, easy to use and actually useful (unlike Aol/Earthlink dial-up service and dell's easy backup service!)
So, are we dealing with software, or is it something in the hardware? I've just shown that the hardware is essentially the same, with a few minor differences... but, OS X isn't sold for normal PCs.
There's a software stability there, but is that a function of Apple's perfect engineering, or is it because Apple works ONLY with so very few differences in hardware, that they can tailor their code specifically for it?
Aka, is a Macbook better than a Dell because its better, or is it because Apple has the ability to so utterly refine their code because they've refused to sell their OS as a standalone for other manufacturer's PCs? Or is it better at all?
And really the answer to, is it better? Is dependent on the person. Some people really enjoy the one-click, etc. Some people don't.
Also, all of the laptops I listed, I gave a 3 yr warranty. So, there shouldn't be any other prices... as it is, to use the external video port on the Apple, you need to buy a propietary adapter, etc.
Apple overcharges for their product because they know they can. Because no one makes it QUITE like Apple. Plus, OS X doesn't work on any other PC.
Windows does. Windows even works on a Mac. For me, that means that Windows is the better operating system because its more diverse.
I'm just rambling now, but my points are as follows:
1) What defines value?
2) What defines value such that it overcomes $1000?
3) Why won't OS X work on any other computer?
4) Apple overcharges because of #3.
5) PCs are superior because of 3,4.
1, 2) Sometimes you get what you pay for and sometimes you don't. That is up to the user to decide and in the end it is 100% personal opinion. I am not trying to tell anyone that Macs are better, or worse; personally I do not care what you or anyone else uses for their computing needs as that has absolutely no affect on me or mine. I am not spending your money to buy my Macs, so why do you care? If you want to compare opinions, though, that's cool.
There are reasons to find value in both PC's and Macs. What I like about PC's, and yes I do like them by the way, is that they come in a rather large range from the bare-bones machine to the high-end-I-will-never-need-this-much-power option; and you can customize each option along the way to further suit your needs. Macs' 'low-end' options are in reality somewhere near the high end of the PC world, which on one hand is a strike against Apple, but on the other hand it is a plus because you are not getting crap (based on pure computing power, not personal opinion of OS). However, you are rather limited in your upgrade options. But, PC's have strange compatibility issuses; just because you own a PC does not mean that Windows is going to run smoothly, and some won't even run Linux (although that is not really the PC manufacturers fault). There are also compatibility issues with peripherals, or you have to spend hours trying to figure out why your new printer is not being recognized. Just because it is PC does not mean that it will work on your computer. Macs do not have such compatibility problems, at least no where near as much as encountered in the PC world.
3) Because Apple pulled 3rd party licensing around 1994. The Power PC chip that Apple used up until the G5 line had a completely different architecture from x86, so the OS was not able to run on a Windows based computer and vice-versa (unless an emulator was used, but talk about slow...). With the intel based Macs, the architecture is essentially now PC, except the OS still is not. What Apple has done was they put a chip on the logic-board (motherboard to the PC brethren out there) that pings the OS to tell it that it is on a Mac (that is how hackintoshes, aka OSx86, can work on PC's - they hacked out the part of OSX that pings the chip so OSX does not know to look for it). There is a European company that has developed a chip that plugs into your computer via USB that enables your Windows computer to run OSX since OSX pings off the chip. Apple is not too pleased by this, but this company claims that they are not violating the EULA. Apple will take them to court over it, but if Apple looses then we could possibly see builds of OSX that will run on any computer. Personally I think that Apple would stand to gain more customers if they went this route, but by having total control over the entire computer Apple is guarantying that everything is 100% compatible, and that is what their reputation is built on (well, at least from 1997 to 2005).
4) Apple 'overcharges' because they do not license out their product to third party manufactures; they over see the entire process themselves from hardware to software. And, they are the smallest major computer manufacturer in the US and only something like 8% of all world computer sales are Macs anyways; so I don't know why PC folk complain so much.
Where did you come up with that? The hardware is basically the same, (some parts are interchangable) your paying the extra grand for the Apple name (in the provided example). I have nothin against Macs, if they were resonably priced I would have one, but they aren't, I may buy a used one down the road, but not a new one.
Intel Macs contain hardware that are optimized for Windows performance. Now, you may be thinking that PC's do as well, but you are only partially correct. Some PC hardware works better with Windows then others, and all PC manufacturers (that I am aware of) install BIOS (not to mention spyware) that are specific and/or unique to their brand, which brings up compatibility issues with certain features or will compromise Windows performance.
Mac OSX6, Leopard, also installs all of the necessary drivers for practically every mainstream peripheral device, meaning that an Intel based Mac running Windows will automatically see your printer without having to tell it that it is there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek
Here's my biggest problem with Macbooks.
I don't like OS X. I've been in it a few times, I've even done minor internal maintenance in them... and I just don't like it.
This is what it all boils down to for most people, but based on what people tell me, it is all about what they know and are familiar with using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek
K-Luv: No "mac" tax? Sure. But there is a Mac premium:
Macbook pro
15.4" LED screen
2.5Ghz Core 2 Duo
4GB RAM
128GB SSD
GeForce 9800M
AppleCare Protection
Total cost:
$3348
Dell XPS M1530
15.4" LED screen
2.53Ghz Core 2 Duo
4GB RAM
128GB SSD
GeForce 8600M GT
3 Yr Warranty
$2358
And I added in the 9-cell battery for that cost
HP DV5T SE
15.4"
2.53 Ghz Core 2 Duo
4GB RAM
400GB SATA (5400 RPM, no SSD available)
Integrated graphics (lame)
3 Yr Warranty
1 6cell/1 12 cell battery
$2083
Now, what is it that the Macbook Pro has that is worth over $1000 more than a pretty equivalent laptop from Dell or HP. Granted, the 9600 GeForce is gonna spike it, but we're talking MAYBE $400 max.
The Macbook Pro has a 1066mhz fsb, while the Dell only has an 800mhz fsb. The Core 2 duo processor on the MacBook Pro that you configured has 6mb (per core) of L2 cache, the Dell has that option, but not sure if you factored that into the costs or not, so it may have 6mb, or it may have 3mb per core. The Macbook Pro also uses DDR3 RAM @ 1066mhz while the Dell is DDR2 @ 667mhz. So, the Macbook Pro has more bang.
I don't even know why you bothered with the HP?
I find it hard to believe that PC people do not realize that there are plenty of Windows, and a few Linux laptops that are $2,500 - $3,000. It's not just Apple.
By the way, it was Bill Gates who coined the term "Mac tax", and it was in reference to Mac users paying more for ascetics (appearance), and nothing else.
So - why are they more expensive? The first and foremost - the lack of competition. Second - they tend to be more innovative. I remember they were one of the first to have DVD burners on their laptops back in 1999, they also adopted Firewire quicker etc...
...
Personally - I think its really like comparing two car makes..... both will get you from point A to point B. Its how you get there and in what fashion that differs based on one's opinion.
...
Radek - you mentioned proprietary video adapters... Both my MacPro and MacBook Pro simply have DVI connectors..... and they usually include a DVI - VGA adapter. You referring to something else?
1) Firewire did not become the generally adopted external device usage that Apple wanted it to. Yeah, its useful... but useful only in select usages. PLUS, everyone has firewire now. so why are we still paying more for that feature?
Same for DVD-Burners. The fact that they lack the option for Bluray kinda annoys me. (Not that I'd buy a blu-ray drive right now anyway)
The new macbook pros, have a propietary video adapter, which you then purchase a mac-DVI or Mac-VGA adapter. The old ones do indeed have DVI.
K-Luv, I'm not really sure why I mentioned the HP either.
The 2.5Ghz Processor uses the 6MB Cache.
Okay, so we have DDR3 (which is not really that much faster than DDR2, because the timings have to be increased. Again, DDR2 isn't that much faster than DDR.) If I remember correctly, it is faster when the FSB and RAM clock speed line up, so the Macbook may be faster.
But, $1000 faster? Thats my point. I am not arguing that the Macbook is a wonderful, efficient, responsive laptop. I'm not arguing that its crap. As a matter of fact, someone earlier stated that the low end of Macs, are mid-level PCs. And thats true. Apple is definitely aiming for a specific market, and they're good at that.
So, lets say that the graphics card, the DDR3 RAM and the fact that Apple has developed their OS for THEIR laptop counts for $500, maybe $600.
Wheres the other $400? If you're going to say that its because Vista runs faster on Apple, then I'm going to tell you I won't use Vista until Microsoft stops supporting XP Pro. And also, if I want an ULTRA-fast computer, I'm not going to buy a laptop. I'll be buying a desktop.
Also, while Apple's market share may be 8% or so. I can say that at the university level, its much, MUCH higher. The market share of this household is... 33%, or 2/6 computers. 2/7 if you count my work laptop. And of that, only 3 computers use Windows as the primary OS.
Personally, I find it ironic that the Apple fanboys are the ones quoting 8% market share, as a defense of their product. Are you trying to convince us that Apple isn't trying to take over the world like Microsoft?
And remember, that 8% is for ALL laptops. And, I can tell you right now, that if you looked at private laptops, not the ones purchased by or for businesses... Apple is looking at up to 40% of that market. Considering how if you look at laptops in my house, its 2/3 Apple to PC. 2/4 if my work laptop counts again.
And I'm not against buying a Macbook pro, and I think I would, if it wasn't so much more damned expensive than others.
Though, I am leaning towards the macbook air, and other similar ultra lightweights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
