Macs Are More Expensive, Right?

[MacBytes]

Category: Reviews
Link: Macs Are More Expensive, Right? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040826153841)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[1macker1]

Ho humm. Bottom line is YES Macs are more expensive than PCs.

[jsw]

This is a great link to show to people - by LinuxInsider, no less!

[Lancetx]

Another stereotype bites the dust. That is a great read and it's all too true. It's a shame that all of the Wintel FUD over the years keeps most people from ever realizing it.

[eric_n_dfw]

As much as i like to agree with this - a lot of people don't need what he calls the "over spec" tha Apple puts into things.

The main problem Apple has is that for many people, the $500 Dell works just fine for them. How much PC power does Grandma need to read email and web sites?

On the high end, it can be argued that Apple is a deal - but I don't even think they care about the bottom feeder market.

Apple is worth the extra $$$ to me - but it's not to everyone.

[wrldwzrd89]

As much as i like to agree with this - a lot of people don't need what he calls the "over spec" tha Apple puts into things.

The main problem Apple has is that for many people, the $500 Dell works just fine for them. How much PC power does Grandma need to read email and web sites?

On the high end, it can be argued that Apple is a deal - but I don't even think they care about the bottom feeder market.

Apple is worth the extra $$$ to me - but it's not to everyone.
That is very true - Apple doesn't want to make an ultra-cheap Mac simply because such a thing would shatter their reputation. I find Apple Macs to be well worth the asking price - little things like Mac graphics cards not being in sync with their PC equivalents don't bother me quite as much as Windows when it's in clunky mode.

[nagromme]

The main problem Apple has is that for many people, the $500 Dell works just fine for them. How much PC power does Grandma need to read email and web sites?

I'd say the opposite--because Apple's OS really shines above all other Mac features. My grandmothers, for instance, can be very productive with Macs even though their needs are very low. It's not power they need, it's ease of use and lack of hassles. They'd NEVER survive with cheap PCs.

Now, if you only HAVE $500 and that's that... shop for either a used Mac or a nice new cheap (meaning cheap parts) PC. Same goes if you enjoy building (and supporting) your own hardware--a hobby I can certainly see the fun in.

[Fender2112]

<snip> ... little things like Mac graphics cards not being in sync with their PC equivalents don't bother me quite as much as Windows when it's in clunky mode.

Besides when it's turned off, when is Windows not in "clunky" mode? Just curious. I though I might be missing out on something special all this time. :D

[Fender2112]

Back on topic. The article was a good read and emphasizes what I try to tell folks all the time. If you are going to compare Apple to PC's, make sure the specs are comprable. It only take one visit to Dell's web site to see that when you compare spec for spec (as close as possible), Apple usually comes out ahead.

[Freg3000]

If you want to look at it like this:

PC/Apple

High/High
Med/Med
Low/X

Apple doesn't really offer a low end machine, and therefore its "lowest" product, which would really be a "medium" product is compared to the Low end of the PC side, which of course, is much less featured and much less expensive. But once you put them on an equal footing, ti all levels out, and sometimes tilts the scale in Apple's favor.

[Abstract]

Decent article, but some of his explanations seemed biased, as did his choice of PC desktops to compare. It was almost like a Steve Jobs comparison of Apple vs Windows PCs..... no offense. ;)

The laptops were a fair comparison, though. No 12" PC laptop out there touches the 12" Powerbook, but I'd say there are a few laptops out there comparable to the 15" Powerbook. Nothing compares to the 17", especially not the HP monster.

[broken_keyboard]

It's makes sense that we are no more expensive for a high-end machine...

There is probably less economies of scale for PC hardware at that level. For the cheapo ones they can divide the development cost over many more boxes than we can, but for high end they don't have that advantage to the same extent.

[sambo.]

heya;
no real surprises there and macs tend to last a lot longer.
on the "windows in clunky mode" - i was doing hardcore quark/ill/ps/acro work on a G3/233/os8.6 only 18 months ago. i'm currently using more recent celerons and win98 to do pagemaker/ill/ps/yadah yahdah yahdah work. since getting rid of Outlook Express (cough) and going to Mozilla, these clunky contraptions have gotten a lot less painful. still aggravating in-extremis, but useable(ish). my opinion of bill & M$ has actually gone up (but not as much as my affection for mozilla.org however). anyhow - windows is always in clunky mode yes.

the server pricing was unbelievable, $3000- for licensing? are you kidding me. :eek:

[backspinner]

the server pricing was unbelievable, $3000- for licensing? are you kidding me. :eek:

No, we calculated it over and over for our small business and it's really that expensive!

[½win½lin]

Sorry people, can't let this one slip ;)

Decent article, but some of his explanations seemed biased, as did his choice of PC desktops to compare.

No kidding!

His choice of low end systems is flat out wrong! He seems to have done everything possible to avoid the fact that you can get a DVD-R and Firewire for about £60.

Over at Dell.co.uk you can spec up a Dimension 2400, with 2.6 celeron, 256Mb, 40Gb, Firewire, Wireless, 17" monitor, speakers and DVD-R for £496.
This leaves me about £10 shy of buying a 128 Mb Radeon 9600Pro from dabs.com to match the price of a £549 eMac (all including VAT and delivery).

Either that or US customers are getting well and truely ripped (which I don't believe for a second)!

In fact you don't even have to buy from Dell, you aren't locked into one manufacturer ... flick over to meshcomputers and you can pick up, for £2000 (okay it's a bit more expensive) you get a 19" Sony TFT, Athlon FX 53, 1Gb Ram, 500Gb Hard Disk, 7.1 speakers and a 256Mb GeForce 6800 Ultra (plus all the multimedia connectivity you can shake a stick at). I am looking forward to seeing the new iMacs but if their top model comes close to this in terms of value, I will buy that system and eat every last chip! Drop down a comparable £1700 and you are still looking at a 19" Sony TFT, 6800 Ultra ableit with an Athlon64 and only 250 Gb of storage.

The tragedy of this is that Apple make some excellent machines and I think if you want a dual processor 64-bit system then you are genuinely hard pushed to find one at a similar price as a PowerMac and to make the most of it you have to be running Linux anyway, and is extremely unlikely to come with optimised software that runs so well on the PM.

Likewise in the server market, where it would be interesting to see an objective comparison of Linux servers vs. Xserve where his licencing issue is just not valid.

(I still believe that PC and Mac laptops cannot be compared because there is a completely different emphasis - Apple go for portability, PC for power but you will get good value on both but it depends on what you want - but you jast can't spec up a laptop to the same extent as a desktop).

It's a pity that the more specialised specs weren't investigated further as that would have made a genuinely interesting article. You don't see them every day, especially in the PC world, and they actually take a fair amount of research to make suitable comparisons.

In the end this is just lazy, sloppy, inaccurate journalism that does Apple no favours what so ever as most people are going to read the first paragraph and call shenanigans missing the valid points to be had in the later paragraphs.

Apologies for the rant.

[wrldwzrd89]

Besides when it's turned off, when is Windows not in "clunky" mode? Just curious. I though I might be missing out on something special all this time. :D
Windows is not in "clunky" mode when:
1. The interface doesn't get in your way
2. Windows stops giving you meaningless/false error messages
3. Security in Windows does its job
...which doesn't happen very often, if at all.

I made a thread on this topic here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=86228).

[nagromme]

If you want to look at it like this:

PC/Apple

High/High
Med/Med
Low/X

Apple doesn't really offer a low end machine, and therefore its "lowest" product, which would really be a "medium" product is compared to the Low end of the PC side, which of course, is much less featured and much less expensive.

Exactly. And even low-end users can benefit from the great OS in Apple's "middle" (eMac/iBook) products.

On pure cost alone, the cheapest Mac is far from the cheapest computer though and that won't change. Macs HAVE gotten cheaper over time though.

[wdlove]

Apple puts out a high quality product. That quality just costs more. When a PC compares with Apple. then the price is closer in comparison.

[AliensAreFuzzy]

Macs HAVE gotten cheaper over time though.

No, they've gotten less expensive.

[wdlove]

No, they've gotten less expensive.

That was a great catch, thank you. Your connotation is the positive one. We are also getting more for the dollar with each upgrade.