Originally posted by gopher
Alex, I still disagree with you. Macs aren't $500 more expensive than PCs and still slower. Find me a PC that is $500 less than a Mac and yet faster, and I'll find you a Mac that is as fast as that PC for the same price or less.
Look at what I did earlier for the Dell that was quoted. If you must compare Macs to PCs, compare new machines whose every quality is backed by the manufacturer.
See below.
Even Dell can't guarantee the operating system will work on the system you install it on. Even Dell doesn't make a listing of devices that won't work with Windows XP, but there are plenty as well. With Apple, we know what works, what doesn't, how easy it is the configure, and if we don't the person at the Applecare phoneline can help us.
Yes, I never said this wasn't the case. It doesn't make Macs any cheaper, though, and the whole thing I'm getting at is that PCs have a better price/performance ratio. Not necessarily price/usability, or price/simplicity, but price/performance - this is what a lot (the majority?) of people look at.
Apple is going even as far as to custom build your system at their retail store. With a PC you need to be educated as a system engineer to get things working all the time. With a Mac you just need to be able to follow the directions on the screen.
This is extremely exaggerated and untrue. Most people get by just fine with Windows XP. If they didn't, the Mac would have a lot more than 3.48% market share.
The net cost of building a PC and making it run will always be higher than the net cost of plugging a Mac and running it.
Debatable.
What artist has the knowledge to build their own highly clocked dual Athlon?
Who says they have to build their own? There are plenty of lesser-known build-to-order and mom & pop computer companies that would be more than happy to build & assemble a reliable and working computer for you, who will include a multi-year warranty for free (unlike Apple) and multi-year free tech support (unlike Apple). The lesser-known, "beige box" companies, taken together, make up the largest segment of PC retailers. Let's put that 933MHz G4 you brought up earlier up against, say, a custom-configured Systemax computer for example. I'll bold the superior components in each.
The Mac:
933Mhz G4
512 PC133 SDRAM
80Gb HD
Superdrive
Geforce 4 Titanium
15" studio display
Gigabit Ethernet
56k modem
Pro Speakers
Mac OS X+ iApps
1-year warranty,
------
Total: $3407
The Systemax:
Athlon XP 2100+ (which will beat a dual GHz Mac at non-AltiVec tasks)
1GB 266MHz DDR SDRAM
Dual 120GB ATA drives
Dual SuperDrives
GeForce4 Titanium
15" LCD monitor
10/100 Ethernet (or drop in a GigE card for <$100)
Sound Blaster Audigy
44 watt speakers w/ subwoofer
USRobotics 56K Modem
MS Intellimouse / Internet Keyboard
Windows XP Home / Works Suite
Headphones
3 year warranty,
3 years on site & lifetime phone support
------
Total: $2710
Now I want you to find me a Mac that performs just as well as the Systemax for the same price, like you said you'd do.
Clocked machines by the way have a chance of lasting a very short time should you not have the technical knowhow to keep it going.
This is plain false.
So your arguement about that Athlon is moot unless you can train the average artist to become a systems engineer knowledgeable in how to modify hardware to one's hearts content.
The Systemax comes from the factory ready to go out of the box, just like the Apple. No systems engineer degree required. Clickety click, you're on the Net, just like the Mac. Is XP inferior to OS X? Yes. It's not inferior to the extent you say it is, though - millions of people are perfectly happy with it.
And what artist is going to have the time to clock a machine to precisely the speed they want? What artist has a hardware technician at their beckoning call in case something goes wrong.
If something goes wrong, call Systemax, just as you'd call Apple.
I want something that works, is fast, and doesn't break down to the point it needs a technician it breaks down. For that there is Macintosh. For the rest of the people who can spend the money on hardware gurus there are PCs. But a hardware guru invariably costs more than machines. So the Macintosh is cheaper by far in the longrun.
I don't understand why you continue to flog a dead horse. Just because you
can open up a PC to tinker with it doesn't mean you have to. If something goes wrong, you can call the company and have them pick it up and fix it for you, and it's just like calling Apple and having them do the same. I seriously think you read too much Apple sales literature. I like Macs too, but I'm perfectly willing to admit that they get their butts kicked by PCs performance-wise on a regular basis - why can't you be too?
Alex
