Of course, in the performance to cost ratio category, which is currently the most important to me, Macs fail. But I'm guessing that's not important to most consumers, and thus a Mac is a good buy. Especially the current Macbook line.
A big part of the communication gulf between PC and Mac 'fans' comes down to how the word "Performance" is defined.
If you're only looking at raw specifications such as CPU GHz, amount of RAM, etc ... then the PC is usually going to win.
However, when you define 'Performance' as the whole enchelada ... hardware + software + UI + reliability + ease of use + service + etc = total ... the answer isn't still a PC win.
What gets included depends on individual consumer and the relative weightings for what is more(less) important to them. When such a broader
holistic view is applied, the Mac can often come out ahead and 'win'.
BMWFan - You're a BMW fan.
Let's say you think that BMWs are extremely reliable (and they probably are)..
Unfortunately, they're not, by conventional automotive reliability measures. Personally, I find it quite ironic that a user who named himself 'BMW Fan' is thus criticizing a product that is very similar to BMW in terms of its overall design philosophy and subsequent design trade-offs. Apparently, this is why the 'nic is "Fan" and not "Owner".
tell that to the mac users who went with the dell display. they will let you know it's an amazing deal since the dell display does everything apple display does and more!
Actually, consider your own facts a second time in a different light: this also reveals that many Apple customers "Don't Blindly Drink the Kool-Aid", since they're clearly being value-concious and showing that they only spend their money where they deem it to be necessary.
Many Mac users, especially designers and graphic artists, are more productive on the Mac platform than on a PC. Many of them earn a great deal of money and their time is quite valuable. You don't have to have a wild imagination to figure out how $700 might be irrelevant to someone like that.
Agreed, and you're alluding to a very common 'False Economy' fallacy.
At a typical fully burdened labor rate of $150+/hour for that class of knowledge worker, the supposed "Savings" of $700 on the hardware's upfront costs will disappear quickly. $500/$150/hr is roughly 5 hours worth of time, which can be eaten up in as little as one Windows OS 'patch tuesday' nonsense cropping up on Wednesday morning's lost productivity.
To put it into an analogy, its like buying a cheaper new car, but it gets worse fuel economy...over time, one will eventually end up paying more. How long it takes to reach that financial cross-over depends on the purchase price difference, cost of fuel, how many miles get driven, etc, etc.
But whatever. I say, buy what you want. I'm amused that what others buy seems to bother you so much.
Yes, it does tend to make one particularly suspicious as to what their real motivations are...and while I don't want to be unkind to newbies, when such loud protests are coming from a new account, applying
Occam's Razor says that an Astroturfing Shill is the most likely explanation.
How can Apple be like Ferrari when they have underpowered hardware?
Because while horsepowered-up Ford may pull ahead on the straightaways, it is lacking in handling, so it gets passed in the corners by the car that had less raw horsepower, but is a better overall PACKAGE.
Applying the analogy, the best car on the track is not the one with the most horsepower on its specs sheet: its the one with the fastest laptime.
And note that 'best laptime' means that it also includes not only how well the machine is balanced, but how well it works in harmony with its driver to produce the best overall result, which also includes car's
character (a semi-intangible) since a happy driver will perform at a higher level, which makes a big difference too.
Great equipment without skill results in DNF's.
If you want to pay $1500 on $700 hardware be my guest.
Hardware is only half the question.
Without and OS and software, the only thing that 'fancy' hardware can do for you is to burn electricity to heat the room.
Um what "little extras" does the Mac have that justifies the $500 price differences?
Since you don't already know, then what validity can there be to your prior claims that there's utterly nothing that could possibly be worth $500?
As I said at the top, a big part of the communication gulf between PC and Mac 'fans' comes down to how the word "Performance" is defined.
First, hardware is literally useless without software, which means that the question of "VALUE" is always wrong when it is constrained to only looking at just hardware. Thus, anytime that I see a "hardware only" comparison, it gets immediately rejected out of hand as being myoptically shortsighted.
Sure, one can claim "All OSs are exactly the same" and try to assume away any software-based variation significances, but it should be obvious to everyone by now that there's at least a contingent of ~10% of the USA market that disagrees strongly enough to vote with their wallet and not only buy something different, but also are willing to pay "more" upfront.
As such, a broader
holistic view is unavoidable.
There is no ultimate "Right" or "Wrong" answer to this because everyone's needs and priorities are different. For some, a PC is fine, and for others they'll conclude to a Macintosh.
There's even a guy on Linux
However, the same marketplace diversity also exists within that favorite analogy of automobiles...including BMWs: so why is it that after 100+ years, the marketplace still hasn't simplified itself down to <6 different models?
Heck, they haven't even been able to standardize what color all cars should be.
If the marketplace supports diversity, there must be a good reason for it.
Similarly, if there's a marketplace shift that's occurring...there's also a good reason.
Consumers invariably vote with their wallets to their own self-interests, and the consumer by definition cannot be wrong. Shortsighted, sure...but that's merely a matter of perspective and priority-setting and its not the same thing as being 'wrong'.
The days where a corporation could individually tell a hundred different consumers "Gosh, that's the FIRST time that this has ever happened" are effectively over. Furthermore, when a company has been found to have been lying in such a fashion can ... rightfully ... be burned on the stake for attempting to be dishonest. It has been said that the Internet interprets attempts at censorship to be network damage and re-routes an alternative path.
Some companies have figured this out, but many have not. Some have found that consumers can be fooled, which is often the mission of Shills and Astroturfers.
However, since part of the power of the Internet is that it provides transparency and disclosure that gives the consumer greater power, when such Shills are discovered, it invariably backfires on the corporation who was trying to manipulate the public. This is the opportunity for anyone who might have a conflict of interest ... such as being a Microsoft MVP (or the Apple equivalent) ... to disclose that now.
-hh
