why is mac so expensive ?

[AskMeIfICare]

there are reasons why mac is expensive,

first one are their cool and popular brand. if you have that brand your the coolest person ^^

and lastly their features and materials they used it.

Your location says "phil"...as in "Philippines"?

I watch people who make $15 per day from call centers sitting in Starbucks with a $3 drink writing e-mail on a Mac Book that cost 150% of what it does in the States.

It's truly sad but this is the state of mind that drives a large majority of Mac product sales....people who really cannot afford it but want to be "the coolest person".

No offense but I hope you realize that this doesn't make the world a better place...and I wish Apple saw what I see everyday.

 

[BornAgainMac]

In my office, people got to pick which desktop they wanted. They can get either a Mac or PC. The PC's of course were much more powerful for the same money. But after 12 months the PC people complained about performance. I have seen what they are talking about and I swear the their PC's perform like the ones 10 years ago. The Mac people all say that it still is just as fast as when they got it.

I personally got a PC for gaming at home and loaded up a ton of games. It seems as fast as when I bought it. I even have Norton on it and it still runs good. In the past, I never had that experience with PCs, might be a Windows 7 thing.

 

[AskMeIfICare]

In my office, people got to pick which desktop they wanted. They can get either a Mac or PC. The PC's of course were much more powerful for the same money. But after 12 months the PC people complained about performance. I have seen what they are talking about and I swear the their PC's perform like the ones 10 years ago. The Mac people all say that it still is just as fast as when they got it.

I personally got a PC for gaming at home and loaded up a ton of games. It seems as fast as when I bought it. I even have Norton on it and it still runs good. In the past, I never had that experience with PCs, might be a Windows 7 thing.

The reason you don't have a problem and they do is because you probably don't do what they do, i.e. install all of the crap that people shouldn't install on any machine, Windows OR Mac yet they do so. Take it from a former network administrator of a 1500 user network...you wouldn't believe what people will install that's "harmless" and "not a virus" but might as well be one. The only reason these kinds of apps are developed for windows is due to the nature of the numbers game of marketing and marketers. If Mac had a big enough market share (and it's getting there), the same kinds of scumware will begin to plague OSX.

In some cases I had to reformat and reinstall 5 times per year...and we were on a network that filtered most bad sites. But it was always the same people. Others had a squeaky clean system as I was leaving my 3 year tenure there. So it's all in the user and how they'll "decorate" their system.

As far as I can see, indeed Windows 7 and OSX run almost identically if run properly as I have both OS on several machines. What's ironic is that I have 2 5 year old systems with XP that are also as fast as the newer OS. The only point where OSX wins hands down is boot times but after that it's anybodies ballgame.

 

[macrumorsMaster]

As far as I can see, indeed Windows 7 and OSX run almost identically if run properly as I have both OS on several machines. What's ironic is that I have 2 5 year old systems with XP that are also as fast as the newer OS. The only point where OSX wins hands down is boot times but after that it's anybodies ballgame.

I agree about the crapware...but sometimes it also has to do with the better memory management of unix based OS's.

I have an old desktop with 512mb ram that is like molasses with XP(without any crapware on it). I installed Ubuntu(dual boot system) on it, and it responds like it's a totally different computer. It's so fast and responsive.

 

[ARF900]

all the extra money your paying is for OSX. Which is worth it.

 

[AskMeIfICare]

I agree about the crapware...but sometimes it also has to do with the better memory management of unix based OS's.

I have an old desktop with 512mb ram that is like molasses with XP(without any crapware on it). I installed Ubuntu(dual boot system) on it, and it responds like it's a totally different computer. It's so fast and responsive.

+1 for Ubuntu. I'm not big on Linux but for pure internet purposes, it blazes.

On a separate note, sometimes people interested in Mac should be aware that sometimes it's better to stay with a lower version of OSX. Right now I'm having performance nightmares across the board with 10.6.2 on multiple systems. Most others that I know are either back to 10.5.8 or 10.6-10.6.1. Unless they make some major fixes with this next update, I may join them back in 10.5.

 

[DoFoT9]

all the extra money your paying is for OSX. Which is worth it.

im sorry but thats just completely wrong.

 

[disconap]

im sorry but thats just completely wrong.

It's not completely wrong. The integration of the OS and the hardware is a HUGE benefit over hackintosh systems. The software is designed and built for the hardware, which gives it a definite leg up.

That said, yes, you are paying for a lot more than just that (durability, reliability, aesthetics, etc), but that is a pretty big part of it...

 

[dernhelm]

Yes, typically anywhere between $500 and $800 cheaper.

You mean how the HP Envy was cheaper than the MacBook it ripped off? NOT. Please compare apples to apples (pun intended) if you plan on stating an $800 lower price tag. Because, mostly it isn't true anymore. Apparently, not even HP can produce a Macbook for less than Macbook prices. Or would you claim you're paying for the HP name?

It's much more complex than a simple "cycle lifetime is x" equation. There are many variables that go into determining a batteries useful life, and lithium polymer vs lithium ion isn't the biggest of them. Lithium Ion cells are perfectly capable of reaching 1000+ discharge/charge cycles, as are lithium polymer cells.

The primary advantage of lithium polymer as I stated in my previous post is that they can be conformed to fit a designed size, while lithium ion cells are always cylindrical. This can lead to higher density batteries, but also has thermal trade-offs.

Apple's battery life tricks are much more than just lithium polymer vs. lithium ion (there is a lot of custom written battery maintenance logic in OS/X). The main reason Li-poly batteries have higher energy density is that they are simply lighter (no metal battery cell casing). Because they do not require metal casings, they can also be formed into almost any shape.

Those two features are the main reason Apple (and many other small/PDA sized computers - including the Kindle) are using it.

 

[DoFoT9]

It's not completely wrong. The integration of the OS and the hardware is a HUGE benefit over hackintosh systems. The software is designed and built for the hardware, which gives it a definite leg up.

That said, yes, you are paying for a lot more than just that (durability, reliability, aesthetics, etc), but that is a pretty big part of it...

nah. he was referring to the fact that you get OSX with the computer when you purchase it. which only costs like what, $69 or something? ($29 if you already have leopard). he wasnt referring to the fact that apple has to integrate the hardware with software.

but yes i do agree with you on your point of course there are benefits over a hackintosh system - why do you think they are named so? but the hack has its +ves too.

 

[FEdward]

Macs are cheaper than Windozers

Considering the reliability, lack of hardware and software problems, fully-equipped right out of the box, product lifetime and excellent support, Macs are FAR more economical than any other computer currently available.

 

[DoFoT9]

Considering the reliability, lack of hardware and software problems, fully-equipped right out of the box, product lifetime and excellent support, Macs are FAR more economical than any other computer currently available.

that is also my opinion.

 

[FX120]

You mean how the HP Envy was cheaper than the MacBook it ripped off? NOT. Please compare apples to apples (pun intended) if you plan on stating an $800 lower price tag. Because, mostly it isn't true anymore. Apparently, not even HP can produce a Macbook for less than Macbook prices. Or would you claim you're paying for the HP name?

I was thinking more along the lines of comparing the MBP to any other 15" business class notebook from HP, Dell or Lenovo. The build quality is equivalent or better, the components are the same or better, yet the cost is significantly lower.

HP's high end consumer-class "envy" line is joke, just like Alienware laptops.

Apple's battery life tricks are much more than just lithium polymer vs. lithium ion (there is a lot of custom written battery maintenance logic in OS/X). The main reason Li-poly batteries have higher energy density is that they are simply lighter (no metal battery cell casing). Because they do not require metal casings, they can also be formed into almost any shape.

Those two features are the main reason Apple (and many other small/PDA sized computers - including the Kindle) are using it.

I am not criticizing lithium polymer technology, I am just pointing out that the only major advantage (aside from the very small difference in weight) is that they are formable to odd shapes, as you said. Other than that, there aren't significant cost or performance benefits over traditional lithium-ion battery packs. The argument of it being a significant feature in Apple's notebooks is a moot point, meaning it doesn't really matter. I think we're in agreement on this.

 

[AskMeIfICare]

It's not completely wrong. The integration of the OS and the hardware is a HUGE benefit over hackintosh systems. The software is designed and built for the hardware, which gives it a definite leg up.

That said, yes, you are paying for a lot more than just that (durability, reliability, aesthetics, etc), but that is a pretty big part of it...

This is simply not true. At a fundamental level the motherboards are all Intel. To argue that a generic motherboard built by the same ACPI specifications for Mac and also used by premium motherboard companies such as ASUS, MSI, EVGA, INTEL, and Gigabyte for example is superior to the aforementioned mobos is baseless. In fact, Macs tend to run hotter. I know since I have both real mac and hackintoshes and run benchmarking and gauging software on both.

In benchmarking tests, my Hacks run the same or faster than Macs. In fact if I overclock just by using the "level up" features, my hack runs 30% faster with the same stability.

Hackintoshes are just as reliable and stable as Macs. There is no difference in longevity of the components and I'd bet any amount that my system of high end solid state drives, heavy duty RAM, and premium cooling systems will last for a decade should I decide to keep it that long.

On the other hand, Hackintoshes require a certain level of interest in tech that leaves people paralyzed with fear at the mere thought of it. It as a steep learning curve and you need to keep up with it i.e. reading online in the event of an update to the software you wish to do. This is not the case if you don't upgrade the OS, but most people understandably wish to stay current.

Finally Macs are slick and stylish. Even the biggest PC freak cannot deny this reality much to the delight of the typical Apple Fanboy. In fact if I was designing a living room, the first thing I'd by is a 27" iMac as my "furniture centerpiece". If my guests came over they wouldn't mind sitting on the floor in exchange for a chance to check their e-mail on my stunning display.

So it's give and take. Just be sure you buy what you buy for the right reasons and don't pay for upgrades that you can do yourself or someone can do for you, i.e. avoid the "Apple Tax" that is at its worst during upgrades to your base model system.

That said, the 27" iMac with i7 processor is a steal. Definitely no Apple tax based on the beauty and power of the machine.

 

[AskMeIfICare]

But gone are the days when a Mac is three to five times the price of a PC with same specs.

Indeed the days of 3-5 times the price are gone. In some cases it's now 6-8 times the price.

If you were to max out a Mac Pro it can cost around $30,000. See here:http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/01/my-2988953-8-co/

I could build the same system and have it fully functional with all system kexts (drivers) active with higher end fundamental components (2000ghz RAM, water cooling, Solid state drives, "Green" add on drives for RAID, etc) for about $5000 if I was using a dual xeon configuration.

I admit that this is excessive but it still tells a story. In fact, take a base model Mac Pro and then make it so that you upgrade the RAM and Solid State drive yourself. If you don't know anybody that knows how I guarantee you that you could hire a "genius" at the Mac store to do it for $50 for you on his or her day off...well you can offer it to them but you may need to pay $100 or so these days. It will take them probably an hour or so but you'll save as much as $1000 if you get comparable quality components (there are stores that sell Mac approved replacement RAM even though other brands work) or $400-500 if you get super premium RAM and SSD. In the case of solid state drives, for example, there is a HUGE difference in quality and performance.

If you look at forums where MacBook Pro users go to discuss upgrades, you'll see exactly that. And the part about the "Geniuses" or other Mac store workers doing installs like this on their day off happens regularly. One guy I know earns double his weekly salary by doing this on the side and his co-workers and the manager know about it because they all do it too. The reason many of them work at the Apple store is not because of the money that they make at the Mac store but rather the opportunity it affords them via the connections they make when their customers give them a business card or vice versa. Nobody complains because they just offer to save money with a home service upgrade and the choice is up to the customer to invite them over. The soft sell takes care of itself when the customer understands the choice. And the thing is that Mac store employees are no better equipped to do the upgrade than the average enthusiast, especially a Hackintosh aficionado who will probably do a better job for 50% less. In fact, that group of individuals solves many of Apples problems for free most of the time. This is why Apple doesn't kill of Hackintosh. In fact, the more I learn about it, the more I believe that it was a brilliant marketing tactic. In my case alone I've converted 5 PC users to Mac after they played with one of my Hackintosh systems and were exposed to something that they otherwise may never have seen up close and personal.

The difference is that they'd see my Mac systems and realize that it's a Mac. No big deal. But when they'd see the Hack, their jaws were on the floor with eyes glued to the screen as I explained how each component was configured to "trick" OSX into believing it is running on its native system. They realized that it was out of their league to do what I did, but that was all the spark that they needed to start thinking about it. The next thing I knew these same people had MacBook Pros or iMacs.

 

[mark28]

+1 for Ubuntu. I'm not big on Linux but for pure internet purposes, it blazes.

What is wrong with Linux according to you?

 

[disconap]

This is simply not true. At a fundamental level the motherboards are all Intel. To argue that a generic motherboard built by the same ACPI specifications for Mac and also used by premium motherboard companies such as ASUS, MSI, EVGA, INTEL, and Gigabyte for example is superior to the aforementioned mobos is baseless. In fact, Macs tend to run hotter. I know since I have both real mac and hackintoshes and run benchmarking and gauging software on both.

Actually it is true. I'm not referring to mobos here, but the entire rig. The OS is designed for the hardware, and always will be (so no conflicts, problems, future need to rehack kernels/kexts/etc.).

In benchmarking tests, my Hacks run the same or faster than Macs. In fact if I overclock just by using the "level up" features, my hack runs 30% faster with the same stability

Hey, that's great for you! This isn't true of all hackintoshes. Or even most of them. I have three; one runs extremely well; one runs slow but stably; one works about maybe a third of the time and I have to constantly tweak or adjust things every time there is an update. Actually this last bit is true of all three machines, though it's much easier to handle on the first two.

Also, benchmarks are complete ********. My slowest hackintosh benchmarks well above my G5, but guess which one actually works better? By, like, gigantic leaps and bounds?

Hackintoshes are just as reliable and stable as Macs.

That's like saying "Macintoshes are better than PCs". It's completely untrue (or perhaps better to say inaccurate), regardless of how you feel about it or what your own machine can or cannot do...

There is no difference in longevity of the components and I'd bet any amount that my system of high end solid state drives, heavy duty RAM, and premium cooling systems will last for a decade should I decide to keep it that long.

Perhaps, and again, good for you if you do/it does. This does not mean that it will function as well with OSX, or any future releases/updates, which is all we are talking about here. Or that the majority of hackintoshes out there will stand up.

On the other hand, Hackintoshes require a certain level of interest in tech that leaves people paralyzed with fear at the mere thought of it. It as a steep learning curve and you need to keep up with it i.e. reading online in the event of an update to the software you wish to do. This is not the case if you don't upgrade the OS, but most people understandably wish to stay current.

Right. And a lot of people don't want to waste that time, because for them the hours learning and working with the tweaks to get everything working properly simply isn't worth it. If it is fun for you, or if using that time doesn't make a difference in your income, then a hackintosh makes perfect sense. If you're trying to save a few bucks but you have a busy life/schedule/job/etc., it's simply not worth it.

And again, if you rely on a stable machine for your income, it's not worth it either unless you can take the time to make fixes and the like. Which most people who have deadlines can't.

Also, I should note at this point that EVERY instance of me saying stable in this discussion is solely about OSX, not about Windows or Linux.

Finally Macs are slick and stylish. Even the biggest PC freak cannot deny this reality much to the delight of the typical Apple Fanboy. In fact if I was designing a living room, the first thing I'd by is a 27" iMac as my "furniture centerpiece". If my guests came over they wouldn't mind sitting on the floor in exchange for a chance to check their e-mail on my stunning display.

So it's give and take. Just be sure you buy what you buy for the right reasons and don't pay for upgrades that you can do yourself or someone can do for you, i.e. avoid the "Apple Tax" that is at its worst during upgrades to your base model system.

That said, the 27" iMac with i7 processor is a steal. Definitely no Apple tax based on the beauty and power of the machine.

No doubt on any of this; as I've recently figured out I am apparently far more aesthetically obsessed than I had thought; aside from my dell mini, all my hackintoshes are stored in cabinets or storage rooms, while my macs sit out in plain view. So it's possible that I'm even at the snob level when it comes to looks; if I ever decided to build a tower hackintosh, I would probably use my G5 case.

 

[disconap]

If you were to max out a Mac Pro it can cost around $30,000. See here:http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/01/my-2988953-8-co/

I could build the same system and have it fully functional with all system kexts (drivers) active with higher end fundamental components (2000ghz RAM, water cooling, Solid state drives, "Green" add on drives for RAID, etc) for about $5000 if I was using a dual xeon configuration.

Ok, but to be fair, maxxing out anything through the base manufacturer is always dumb. That's not an Apple tax, that's a convenience tax. I don't know anyone who would upgrade anything on an Apple order, past maybe minimizing the number of RAM sticks so when they do upgrade they aren't wasting the ones that shipped with the machine...

 

[ouimetnick]

It's not completely wrong. The integration of the OS and the hardware is a HUGE benefit over hackintosh systems. The software is designed and built for the hardware, which gives it a definite leg up.

That said, yes, you are paying for a lot more than just that (durability, reliability, aesthetics, etc), but that is a pretty big part of it...

But when its dropped, the aluminum bends, when the logic board craps out, its always as much as a new machine. I don't own an MacBook, but my brothers do. Plus with that $1999 price tag, they make sure to geve you several syringes of thermal past pre-installed on the prosser cores.

 

[ouimetnick]

the guy above me is an idiot, any real mac fan will agree

don't worry guys we know why we use macs, and why we are willing to pay for them

**** this dude

i bet he bitches about people who drive Bmw's too. "Because they charge more, My hyundai can do that for a quarter of the price." blammin' dipstick.

I thing calling someone an idiot can get you banned. Also he is right. I've taken a aprt a MB, and a dell laptop. The MB had cheap brital connectors on it while the Dell Latitude D620 has nice sturdy connectors. All you pay for when buying a Mac, is software, looks, and innovative features like Magsafe, and kick ass long lasting batteries. Personally $600 extra for those isn't worth it for me. OSX is def a great OS, I love my hackintosh. So I may buy a MBP or an Apple computer in the future

 

[AskMeIfICare]

Actually it is true. I'm not referring to mobos here, but the entire rig. The OS is designed for the hardware, and always will be (so no conflicts, problems, future need to rehack kernels/kexts/etc.).



Hey, that's great for you! This isn't true of all hackintoshes. Or even most of them. I have three; one runs extremely well; one runs slow but stably; one works about maybe a third of the time and I have to constantly tweak or adjust things every time there is an update. Actually this last bit is true of all three machines, though it's much easier to handle on the first two.

Also, benchmarks are complete ********. My slowest hackintosh benchmarks well above my G5, but guess which one actually works better? By, like, gigantic leaps and bounds?



That's like saying "Macintoshes are better than PCs". It's completely untrue (or perhaps better to say inaccurate), regardless of how you feel about it or what your own machine can or cannot do...



Perhaps, and again, good for you if you do/it does. This does not mean that it will function as well with OSX, or any future releases/updates, which is all we are talking about here. Or that the majority of hackintoshes out there will stand up.



Right. And a lot of people don't want to waste that time, because for them the hours learning and working with the tweaks to get everything working properly simply isn't worth it. If it is fun for you, or if using that time doesn't make a difference in your income, then a hackintosh makes perfect sense. If you're trying to save a few bucks but you have a busy life/schedule/job/etc., it's simply not worth it.

And again, if you rely on a stable machine for your income, it's not worth it either unless you can take the time to make fixes and the like. Which most people who have deadlines can't.

Also, I should note at this point that EVERY instance of me saying stable in this discussion is solely about OSX, not about Windows or Linux.



No doubt on any of this; as I've recently figured out I am apparently far more aesthetically obsessed than I had thought; aside from my dell mini, all my hackintoshes are stored in cabinets or storage rooms, while my macs sit out in plain view. So it's possible that I'm even at the snob level when it comes to looks; if I ever decided to build a tower hackintosh, I would probably use my G5 case.

1) I have I/0 registry dumps for dozens of non mac mobos and also for real macs. In most cases they are nearly identical. In a couple of cases I've used the DSDT generated from a real mac and used it on a PC mobo and it booted up with just 2 system kexts and everything worked 100%. I don't want to sound rude but if you don't know how to hack the DSDT file or map it out using the I/O reg as your guide, you have no idea what you are talking about. Before I got a deep understanding of this, I leaned toward your perspective.

The reality is that the "secret sauce" is the Mac EFI firmware. This is essentially the boot file and a handful of modifications to DSDT and/or system kexts rolled into one. As time goes by, the hackintosh community gets closer to getting this perfected and hence Hacks need less and less system kexts with proper emulation files and DSDT mods.

Your first sentence is completely misleading and baseless. If this was true, we wouldn't have so many issues with Macs overheating, crashing, bugs, no audio, lack of sleep, etc. Each issue of the EFI Firmware or OS revisions allows this to be true (Mac run perfectly on its hardware). So each time there is a revision it can fix a problem on Mac but possibly create a problem on a Hack that didn't share that problem. Within days or weeks, however the Hack community makes the fix that takes weeks, months, or never for some Mac models. For those who take the "ostrich with head in sand" perspective be aware that I'm just being objective since the Mac support forums are not overwhelmed with complaints and long standing issues without a reason.

I managed to even fix the bluetooth drop issue (big issue recently) on my hack system several weeks before Mac released a fix.

You are correct that it's not true for all hackintoshes and I never said that it was true. But on the other hand there are Macs that never ran perfectly and never will since they were abandoned by support after newer releases. So let's be fair and objective here.

2) G5 vs Intel. I happen to agree with you here so you won't get an argument from me since in relative terms, you are 100% correct.

3) Also agreed and you are just reinforcing my argument in that unless you have time to invest in it or pay someone to maintain it for you, you should use the "time is money" point of view. In my case I hate TV with the exception of Supernatural, True Blood, and Lost (two are sort or off season running shows), have a full home gym, have my meals delivered 2-3 times per day, and even work at home, I have more than enough free time to keep up with it. So you are totally right, hooray for me, but for those without my setup it makes it more difficult that I created by years of busting my butt to cruise through life now it won't be so simple and I readily admit the time involved. We all have more than one hobby right? That happens to be one of them. Ok I'm spoiled but I work on the web so what can I say...my job requires it hehe


***Bottom Line***

My post was to point out certain pros and cons from an objective point of view. The "good for you"s are not necessary since I didn't post it to brag and I readily admit the torturous learning curve and time invested. But for some strange reason it was fun for me. My dad was a master of the quarter mile and loved muscle cars. He could put his hands on a running car and tell you everything about it. So maybe that's why I feel the same thing about Hacks. They are the "muscle cars" of the 21st century to most men who work with them.

But the reality is that if someone does a couple hours of research, they can figure out which boards are more or less 100% vanilla and will work with only 2-3 system kexts and a boot file. One is the MSI P55 G45. Another is the ASUS P6T series.

Due to the heat issues of my Mac Pro (a common problem on the forums), I've had to suspend pro work on it related to audio and Logic 9 and work from my Hack with a i7 920 that works 100%. I've done this for 3 months now without one single issue. The reason is that Mac won't acknowledge the issue since they don't know how to fix it. Others I know in the industry are struggling through it or went back to 10.5.8 and still have unresolved issues.

So again, it's give and take, and Mac is not 100% reliable in every application or scenario. To say otherwise is to be part of the fanboy cult, and to argue with people like that is an exercise in futility to say the least since they cannot learn.

 

[AskMeIfICare]

What is wrong with Linux according to you?

Noting is "wrong" with Linux...it just scares me like Hackintosh scares fanboys

Maybe someday I'll finally get the nerve to jump into it and explore. (I'm am audio/video producer and marketer on the web so the amount of time I have to be a code monkey is limited )

 

[AskMeIfICare]

Ok, but to be fair, maxxing out anything through the base manufacturer is always dumb. That's not an Apple tax, that's a convenience tax. I don't know anyone who would upgrade anything on an Apple order, past maybe minimizing the number of RAM sticks so when they do upgrade they aren't wasting the ones that shipped with the machine...

I said that it was indeed an extreme example. It's just that Mac is unique in that "it is what it is" and you cannot choose between different manufacturers of Mac like you can with Dell, Toshiba, ASUS, etc. So you are "stuck" with one set of options and/or upgrades for each particular class of system. In the non-Mac case you can find a system with the options you want that come as standard and save a bundle vs. systems that you must upgrade to get the same options.

So I agree with you wholeheartedly, but in fairness if you compare upgrades such as RAM chip for chip and hard drive gig for gig, Mac charges much higher during the upgrade process hence the whole basis for the "Apple Tax" debate.

 

[AskMeIfICare]

So it's possible that I'm even at the snob level when it comes to looks; if I ever decided to build a tower hackintosh, I would probably use my G5 case.

I working on this now myself except making the case obsidian black and silver

 

[Denarius]

I have PScs3 , I don't want cs4 , still learning it . If I install snow leopard , will it affect cs3 . I have been told there are still problems . if that is so , then I shall stay with OSx leopard . What is going on ? Can you help ? Also , Pc's with more in them cost half the price of mac , why . My repair person (mac guy) told me the parts are all made in the same places . Are we paying for just the name and all the mac product line ?

CS3 seems to be rock solid on Snow Leopard.

The main reason they charge so much is because there are enough people willing to pay what they ask.