Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
i would love to see you show some examples to prove that. I have not problem agree with you on this--when you show me some examples.

PS. so I guess there is no argument that PC CAN BE much cheaper as a unit, right?

If you take into account OS X and the aluminum unibody case then i think you'd struggle to find a cheaper portable Windows machine with the same quality and reputation. I'm not saying its impossible, but comparing it to an Asus or Acer or Dell doesn't really count, we both know in real life they wouldn't live up to a Macbook Pro, even a Dell XPS doesn't compare. All you have to do is install OS X on the best Dell XPS and then run XBench and the scores dont match the Macbook Pro, even though its cheaper and higher spec.

http://lifehacker.com/software/benchmarks/hackintosh-vs-mac-pro-vs-macbook-pro-benchmarks-322866.php
 
If you take into account OS X and the aluminum unibody case then i think you'd struggle to find a cheaper portable Windows machine with the same quality and reputation.

its better if you can just show me some real world machines.

I don't think you can make that type of statement without any backup.:confused:

if you don't have any example. then lets just handle the fact, goto any website and store, you can find much cheaper windows computers than macs. less quality? maybe yes, maybe no. but we have no evidence of arguing about that.
 
its better if you can just show me some real world machines.

I don't think you can make that type of statement without any backup.:confused:

if you don't have any example. then lets just handle the fact, goto any website and store, you can find much cheaper windows computers than macs. less quality? maybe yes, maybe no. but we have no evidence of arguing about that.

http://lifehacker.com/software/benchmarks/hackintosh-vs-mac-pro-vs-macbook-pro-benchmarks-322866.php

Now you handle the fact, those graphs prove you wrong. Remember the Mac Pro has 2GB of RAM compared to the hackintosh's 4GB.
 

im fascinated with your logic.

how exactly comparison of the performance of a hackintosh and a mac -- who have totally vague or different spec and unknown price-- prove "spec to spec, mac is cheaper"?

exactly what was your logic?

that graph prove me wrong? ...mmm....well. I dont think we are communicating.. later.
 
im fascinated with your logic.

how exactly comparison of the performance of a hackintosh and a mac -- who have totally vague or different spec and unknown price-- prove "spec to spec, mac is cheaper"?

exactly what was your logic?

that graph prove me wrong? ...mmm....well. I dont think we are communicating.. later.

Please speak proper English because i honestly cant understand you, without being rude.

I proved you wrong because you said spec for spec Windows machines were better than Mac, and i just showed you some graphs showing that a Mac with lower specs than a Windows Machine running OS X still gets higher benchmark results.
 
Please speak proper English because i honestly cant understand you, without being rude.

I proved you wrong because you said spec for spec Windows machines were better than Mac, and i just showed you some graphs showing that a Mac with lower specs than a Windows Machine running OS X still gets higher benchmark results.

Two dual core 2.66 GHz processors versus a single dual core 2.21 GHz is spec for spec?

The article even says:
"none of these setups is a perfect match for benchmarking comparisons"
 
Please speak proper English because i honestly cant understand you, without being rude.

I proved you wrong because you said spec for spec Windows machines were better than Mac, and i just showed you some graphs showing that a Mac with lower specs than a Windows Machine running OS X still gets higher benchmark results.

lol, you need to get real. you don't know nothing about the specs of those hackintosh machine except the ram size and cpu clock.

and I never said anything about windows machine is better spec for spec. I simply asked you to prove your statement

"spec to spec, mac is cheaper".

you proved nothing. You jumping here and there, making definitive statements one after another, when questioned, you dodging the issues and put words in my mouth.

Im wasting my time with you, and sorry, enjoy yourself, im done with you.
 
Two dual core 2.66 GHz processors versus a single dual core 2.21 GHz is spec for spec?

The article even says:
"none of these setups is a perfect match for benchmarking comparisons"

yeah i completely agree, but the benchmarks make use of RAM mostly, which the Mac Pro has less off, anyway i dont have time to find every benchmark ever made. If hackintosh's were so much better and cheaper, noone would buy real Mac computers, especially people on this forum.

Whats your evidence to support:

so I guess there is no argument that PC CAN BE much cheaper as a unit, right?
 
Spec for spec?

Okay.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220488

Same spec MacBook pro is $2299.00

more?

NewEgg

i know this is an old thread, but you forgot to factor in the price of the windows os versus the mac os. i paid 200 dollars for windows 7 (not even the full version) and only 30 dollars for mac's. you also need to factor in the price of anti virus software, anti virus removal. you don't really seem to remember that most people running windows/using a pc aren't "computer-savvy" and don't know **** about their own computer. therefore, for a lot of people, the user-friendly system of a mac and the fact that it's easy to repair is a big factor.

repairing a mac yourself is easy as pie, as are finding the parts online. that is if you aren't that stupid that you don't even know the model of your own mac. if something breaks on your pc, good for you, you may know how to fix it, but everyday people don't. they will pay an arm and a leg to have a virus removed or a broken part replaced. just calling the right people to get that done is a pain in the ass.

price-wise, you're also forgetting to factor in the software that comes installed on a mac vs windows. good luck finding software to rival garageband or any of the other programs that come packaged with ilife, which come free on new macs btw.

there is so much to factor in that you're not getting.

i also agree with the poster claiming you'll never have spec for spec windows vs. mac. os x is faster, completing tasks at nearly twice the speed of a similarly spec'd pc.

apparently we all want links here, so here is an example of two all-in-ones, similarly spec'd (of course not exactly) going head to head.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/tests/4258725

of course you can get a pc that is better than a mac. my brother spent 10k on his. how about you? mine was $1200, and we (brother and i) play the same games (me running windows 7 when needed on a second partition). he paid to have his built from the ground up with all the best graphics and hardware and for what? to have a new graphics card come out in 2 months that has twice the capability?

i won't say macs do everything best.

they could definitely stop making programs with "i" in the front of the damn name.

on another note, the only thing i've paid for on my mac since getting it in 08 was a larger hard drive, and upped it from 2gb ram to 4. both for under 100 bucks, because yes, you can find places to get mac stuff cheap too.

in comparison, the other people i know irl with windows laptops bought in the same year i got my mac:

alienware (brother's) fan wacked out, he had a desk fan pointed at it where it sat to keep it from overheating. dog tripped over the cord and pulled the comp down, cracking the screen (needing replacement, a few hundred dollars. (no magsafe adapter? seems important now doesn't it?))

toshiba (best friend's) has had viruses (apparently her brother has used it for who knows what) and she defragments at least once a month to keep it in "top condition". she's running vista so, maybe that explains it. she pays for some 100 some dollar version of norton to keep viruses off of her computer. don't know how norton performs these days, but back when i used windows it would just tell me i had a virus, then fail at removing it.

dell (school buddy) word locks up and refuses to respond when he tries to scroll through a document using the trackpad. is that a fault of windows and word, or something in the trackpad causing it? did someone not produce a crucial driver? does he call dell and hope for a fix, or windows? the two companies just relay him back and forth, refusing to take blame.

falcon northwest custom built gaming pc - only fault? windows. (brother's new desktop that he spent around 10k for) he had to remove a graphics card just so that he could run spore. there is such a thing as "too good." he also had a lot of compatibility issues (it came with vista installed) with a lot of his old games, so he downgraded, yes DOWNGRADED to windows xp. that kind of **** shouldn't be necessary, especially when you shell out that much dough for a computer.

why do i use a mac? because i don't want to spend 50% of my computer time fixing it, or defragmenting it, or preventing viruses, or telling windows that, yes, i do want to click on this link and install this program, and no, it doesn't have a damn virus attached to it stop asking.

i spent my whole life using windows (up til age 18) and never really giving a **** about it. it took me 3 days to learn the ins and outs of the mac.

i do have bad things to say about the mac. their makers are full of themselves. a lot of their users are full of themselves, even when they have no ****ing idea what they're talking about. they're fun to inform when they start spitting out false info acting like they're all special cause they have a mac. (to be fair, there are tons of windows users who act just like this, many of whom i know in person, just spouting ******** when they haven't even touched a mac that hasn't been sitting in a classroom for 15 years).

mac also needs to make a computer that has a tower (upgradeable) that is not as profound (and expensive) as the mac pro. something like the macbook compared to macbook pro.

customization. they need to introduce more of it.

otherwise, my computer is wicked fast, even though it's getting on 5 years old. it runs all the games my buddies run and at the same speed or faster. multitasking on it is heaven, especially when designing web sites. having 2 files of a text editor open for css and html, photoshop in another window, safari to preview, firefox to preview, finder windows open with all the **** i need right there in an instant with expose. when i go to my dreamweaver class at school and have to do the same things on xp (and even on 7 there's no comparison) i suffer trying to find a way to speed up the process of just simply navigating through everything i have open.

also, god damn, fix IE. it's the only one that's still a baby when it comes to codes. have to spell all kinds of **** out for it when other browsers don't have a problem.
 
i know this is an old thread, but you forgot to factor in the price of the windows os versus the mac os. i paid 200 dollars for windows 7 (not even the full version) and only 30 dollars for mac's. you also need to factor in the price of anti virus software, anti virus removal. you don't really seem to remember that most people running windows/using a pc aren't "computer-savvy" and don't know **** about their own computer. therefore, for a lot of people, the user-friendly system of a mac and the fact that it's easy to repair is a big factor.

In my experience Windows has never been as dangerous as people on this forum allude to. I've had Bootcamp installed on my iMac since day 1 (2006) and never a virus, I've always had AVG (a free virus scanner) installed and I deal with sending and receiving lots of files daily. AVG never detected a virus nor have the big firms with, what I assume to have, serious anti-virus software installed.

I paid £70 for XP and it has last me 8 years. In that time I've bought each version of OSX as it was released, so far OSX has cost more. I have access to student/teacher versions of Windows and OSX now so they're both brought down to negligible prices.

But I agree with the message of this thread, sort of. I've been pricing up my next computer. It has to last a while so I have no problems buying maxed out hardware. I'm primarily looking at the iMac because of that display and the specs are great; but if I price up a home built PC I'd also want a similar display. And that's when the price line blurs;

£1700 for the iMac (4gb ram, though).
£700 for the PC, £800 for the monitor.


I've also always felt the resale value of a Mac is just brilliant. Bought a £900 Macbook in 2008. Sold it 6 months ago for £600 (thank you Apple for making the new Macbooks terrible for musicians :)).
 
I won't get entangled in whether I can find the "same spec" windows box cheaper than a Mac, but I will make one observation. I've got a house full of Macs, all of which are over 2 years old, some of which are 5 years old and none of which needs replacing. Sure, I'd like a new Mac but I don't need a new Mac.

It's easy to dredge through the web looking for "deals" to justify buying a hackintosh or a Win 7 box, but what has not been clearly addressed in these threads is the ability for a Mac to keep running smoothly for years. I know there are cases where windows boxes ran a decade or more but this is not consistent with my experience.

We never got more than 18 months out of a windows box (hp and dell mostly) without having to fix something that was broken, mostly printing to hp printers. Now with Brother printers and Apple computers, I've forgotten what it is like to waste hours fixing something that is broken. Well, I did have to add an external drive to my Time Capsule when my sparsebundle file got corrupted for the third time in 2 years. I know this has happened when the TM clock is perpetually running. Still, adding the external 2TB drive (which I had to format HFS instead of NTFS), and setting up TM to back up to it only took 30 minutes out of my day.

I am willing to concede that you can get a "similar" windows box cheaper than a Mac. For instance, during a trip to Microcenter recently I saw they were offering roughly $100 off almost all their Macs. This meant they ranged in price from $950 and up. Meanwhile, there were PCs on display for $300 and up. While I could convince myself that the "low end" macbook or macbook air was a lot better than the equally priced PC at MC, the average user might get the impression the Apple gear was "over priced".

Rather than argue about it, I would rather point out that in my experience the total cost of ownership is lower, and the quality is higher with Mac. Whether that's worth it is something a user has to decide for themselves. As for arguing about boot camp and parallels, for me the move to OS X is as much about putting windows out of my life as it is about getting better hardware. For me a huge part of the value proposition of Apple gear is Apple software and Apple's vision of an excellent end to end user experience. That's worth something to me.
 
If hackintosh's were so much better and cheaper, noone would buy real Mac computers, especially people on this forum.

Except the vast majority of Mac users who are not computer nerds and wouldn't have the slightest idea on how to install and make a hakintosh work properly ie proper hardware and drivers etc.

repairing a mac yourself is easy as pie, as are finding the parts online. that is if you aren't that stupid that you don't even know the model of your own mac. if something breaks on your pc, good for you, you may know how to fix it, but everyday people don't.

I'd beg to differ especially in the case of iMacs. Going in through the cover and lcd just to get to the components is not easy and once you get in there there is very little user replaceable parts as everything is solder together. Unlike most typical windows machines where something breaks ie graphics card you just run down to the local computer shop or best buy and buy a new one go home pop off 2 screws and toss it in. Just not possible with a iMac.
 
why do people make these kinds of comparisons, as if the retail price vs. chip specs were the only relevant comparison point? the chips apple uses are commodity chips, just like dell and sony and hp. comparing them is silly, since they're all the same. some times the model numbers are slightly different, sony might use the 2.1 ghz while dell uses the 2.4 ghz and apple uses the 2.2 ghz. so what? who cares? they're all close enough.

i buy my laptops based on build quality. build quality is a completely separate argument from chip specs, and imo it's the more important one. there's a reason the top-end panasonic toughbooks cost $6000, while using chips that are slower that most other manufacturers use. the mbp aluminum unibody construction is head and shoulders above the cheap plastic laptops coming out of hp and dell.

we also have the features argument. how many peecee laptops have firewire 800 on board? or thunderbolt? heck, mac laptops had Gig-E on board before anyone else too. lets not forget Target Disk Mode and the EFI firmware. How many peecee laptops have those? zero.
 
One can play the "spec for spec" game until the cows come home. The whole thing's a red herring because you can't get an exactly spec'd PC to compare it to. You'll find a comparable PC and the "spec for spec" guys will say "yeah, but, the PC doesn't have the beautiful unibody aluminum chassis, so it's not spec for spec". Does any PC have that? And then you'll find one and the naysayers will say "Yeah, but the Mac comes with OS X, so you have to add $200 to the PC to make it equivalent." Oh really, and Windows was free?

It's like saying "You can't compare any car with a BMW. Your car doesn't have the beautiful BMW badge on the front, so it's an invalid comparison."

we also have the features argument. how many peecee laptops have firewire 800 on board? or thunderbolt? heck, mac laptops had Gig-E on board before anyone else too. lets not forget Target Disk Mode and the EFI firmware. How many peecee laptops have those? zero.

So first of all, you can stop calling them "peecees" (unless that really does help you feel better about being a Mac user). It's childish and unnecessary.

Second, you have a point about GigE, F800 and ThunderBolt. Macs have those, most PCs don't. You pay for it on your Mac, though. Is it worth it to some people? Absolutely. Is it worth it to everyone? No. It's like Subaru selling all their cars with four-wheel-drive built in compared to other car models where it's an add-on option. You don't get a choice about it. It's a good feature, you pay a little more for it, it's worthwhile to many, but not everyone wants 4WD, not everyone wants to pay for it, and it's not a reason to say that Subarus are "better" than other cars.

Threads like this are silly.
 
Last edited:
why do i use a mac? because i don't want to spend 50% of my computer time fixing it, or defragmenting it, or preventing viruses, or telling windows that, yes, i do want to click on this link and install this program, and no, it doesn't have a damn virus attached to it stop asking.

Agree with your point but just a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? I have both PCs and Macs at home so let's review.

Defragmenting ... i haven't done this in years on my Win7 machine.
Preventing viruses ... virus app runs in background realtime
Telling windows that, yes, i do want to click on this link and install this program ...Last I checked you have to provide admin access to install applications on both Windows 7 and OSX. In Windows I click "allow" ... in OSX i have to type my admin password. Keystroke for keystroke, its faster on Win7

I'm with you I love my Mac but don't stick to these age old arguments. Just say you like the Mac better and be done with it.
 
Just my 2c worth...

Your trying to say macs are cheaper spec for spec and that is absolutely total garbage. Your just using a macbook pro for reference. What about the mac pro? I can tell you with absolute certainty that i can buy a computer that is more powerful and ALOT cheaper.

You cling onto the "go and find me an aluminium laptop with osx on it blah blah" GO AND FIND ME A FORD FOCUS WITH A VAUXHALL BADGE ON IT! Its Apples choice to make it out of aluminium but that doesnt come without its downsides (shows every single mark on it , plastic can be easier to live with)

The FACT IS , MACS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE!
 
Just my 2c worth...

Your trying to say macs are cheaper spec for spec and that is absolutely total garbage. Your just using a macbook pro for reference. What about the mac pro? I can tell you with absolute certainty that i can buy a computer that is more powerful and ALOT cheaper.

You cling onto the "go and find me an aluminium laptop with osx on it blah blah" GO AND FIND ME A FORD FOCUS WITH A VAUXHALL BADGE ON IT! Its Apples choice to make it out of aluminium but that doesnt come without its downsides (shows every single mark on it , plastic can be easier to live with)

The FACT IS , MACS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE!

Depends on what you're comparing, really. If you're comparing a Polycarbonate Macbook to a Plastic HP at Best Buy, yes. The MB is more expensive, and has less specs. I'll pay $999 for the MB vs. say $399 or so for the HP. However, that $399 HP is a 15" screen, bad graphics, a slimmed down OS [Win 7 Basic, or Home], and that's it. Keep both for a year. What's worth more?

Now...if you compare an entry level 13" MBP with an HP Elite or similar, with the same options, and chassis, you're at a very similar price point. The problem is that the basic consumer doesn't see this, or care. Especially when you throw in a certain age group, or populous. A kid, or family with little cash will always defer to the lower end stuff, with the idea it's good enough for what we're doing. Point is, over the course of time they'll spend the same. My son has a 2007 MB at home. It's as good as the day it was bought, and it was a refurb. A friend of mine bought both his kids a DELL laptop for X-Mas in 2009. Neither stood up, and he has to get them new ones. Cost for purchasing all of them [old and new] over the last few years is more than what I paid for one. AND I can resell the 2007 MB, and apply it toward a new one.

My point? Yes, they can be more expensive. But they do last, and hold their value. It's the same idea as buying one Toyota, or Lexus and keeping it 5 - 8 years. Or, buy 2 Fords over the same timeframe. They'll end up both costing the same over that span...
 
Alright I just skimmed through this topic and this is a troll yes? I don't buy a complete computer I just build mine but last time I did the only thing I have to compare to was when my brother bought an iMac for around 2k and I bought a Dell with the same specs for a little over 1k. Mine I upgraded to keep current for about 5 years spent roughly 500 for a faster processor, more ram, and video card. After 3 years he was buying another iMac. Just recently he bought another iMac as we compared specs compared to my recent build(2nd computer in 5yrs) and they can't even compare. His cost him around 2500 for a little less of everything and I spent 1500 with plenty of room for upgrades so in another couple years if he is wanting anything major then its another computer where I will just be replacing a couple things. I guess there is always the option for the Mac Pro but with the starting point at 2500 with the only impressive spec being the processor I just don't see how anyone could seriously say you get more with a mac for the same cost. It does go without saying Mac's look way better than most if not all standard PC's and OSX is very friendly to a new computer user. I only use PC's but for anyone that just wants a computer that works I always recommend the Mac if money is not an issue.

...AND I can resell the 2007 MB, and apply it toward a new one.

People are seriously buying a computer made in 2007? The only sense that makes is if its dirt cheap, for parts, or they just want to own a Mac but cant afford a new one. After a computer is over 1.5yr for me its dated beyond reason just makes me think of a painfully slow experience when trying to run anything recently released thats main purpose is not typing a paper or browsing a webpage.
 
Last edited:
Alright I just skimmed through this topic and this is a troll yes? I don't buy a complete computer I just build mine but last time I did the only thing I have to compare to was when my brother bought an iMac for around 2k and I bought a Dell with the same specs for a little over 1k. Mine I upgraded to keep current for about 5 years spent roughly 500 for a faster processor, more ram, and video card. After 3 years he was buying another iMac. Just recently he bought another iMac as we compared specs compared to my recent build(2nd computer in 5yrs) and they can't even compare. His cost him around 2500 for a little less of everything and I spent 1500 with plenty of room for upgrades so in another couple years if he is wanting anything major then its another computer where I will just be replacing a couple things. I guess there is always the option for the Mac Pro but with the starting point at 2500 with the only impressive spec being the processor I just don't see how anyone could seriously say you get more with a mac for the same cost. It does go without saying Mac's look way better than most if not all standard PC's and OSX is very friendly to a new computer user. I only use PC's but for anyone that just wants a computer that works I always recommend the Mac if money is not an issue.

AND I can resell the 2007 MB, and apply it toward a new one.


People are seriously buying a computer made in 2007? The only sense that makes is if its dirt cheap, for parts, or they just want to own a Mac but cant afford a new one. After a computer is over 1.5yr for me its dated beyond reason just makes me think of a painfully slow experience when trying to run anything recently released thats main purpose is not typing a paper or browsing a webpage.

I'm looking to replace an older Mini with something else. There is a local shop selling 2006 and 2007 iMacs for $400-650. I'm considering one because I can make good use out of it for years to come. In attempting to argue about the value of Macs you have actually pointed out one of the more valuable things about Macs. Macs tend to age gracefully.

Sure there are some disgruntled G4 and G5 users out there who are furious that they can't run Snow Leopard. But they can run Leopard. And guess what? There are no commercial pieces of software out that say they require Snow Leopard. None (that I have noticed). I tend to agree 1.5 years is about the longest I could stand the windows boxes I've had over the years, but as I mentioned in a previous post, ALL our Macs are over 2 years old and the only reason I'm thinking of replacing one or two of our Minis is to get Facetime without resorting to usb cameras.

I'm typing on a 3+ year old white Macbook and it geekbenches at 3,000. The brand new Dell E6400 I got in November geekbenches at 3,000 as well. If I went for a new 13 inch Macbook Pro, it would geekbench at 5900, but my Macbook doesn't "feel" slow. I get to pick the time and place of my next Mac upgrade, and it's not brought on by some software I need or an update that got pushed to my machine that is making it run slow. In fairness I should mention that I don't do "heavy lifting" and only run computationally intensive stuff occasionally, but my system doesn't seem one bit slow, especially compared to Windows 7 (which is hobbled by the IT knuckleheads at my job.)

If you want some objective evidence about the resale value of Mac gear as a ratio of purchase price and have some time, I suggest you search "completed listings" at ebay for macbooks and imacs. I think you'll be surprised how much you can still get for used Mac gear as a percentage of original purchase price. Those 4 and 5 year old systems I was looking at the other day are selling at 40 to 50 percent of original retail and this guy's price was a bit below typical internet pricing because he's selling bulk lease turn-in equipment.
 
People are seriously buying a computer made in 2007? The only sense that makes is if its dirt cheap, for parts, or they just want to own a Mac but cant afford a new one. After a computer is over 1.5yr for me its dated beyond reason just makes me think of a painfully slow experience when trying to run anything recently released thats main purpose is not typing a paper or browsing a webpage.

I don't understand it either, but if the market will bear it... A MacBook Pro identical to mine (2007 Santa Rosa) is selling, used, at a local Mac shop for $899. That suggests to me that if I was to sell this machine, I could probably ask $700-800 for it. Not too bad!
 
I still think Macs are overpriced when it comes to the core things (processor & video card especially).

Also, I enjoy eating Red Velvet Cake. It is my favorite type of dessert, does anyone have any good recipes?
 
I don't understand it either, but if the market will bear it... A MacBook Pro identical to mine (2007 Santa Rosa) is selling, used, at a local Mac shop for $899. That suggests to me that if I was to sell this machine, I could probably ask $700-800 for it. Not too bad!
Oh well if someone will pay for it then good deal :) Gives me thoughts of buying a replacement battery for the old macbook pro i have in the closet and see if I can get someone to buy it :p

I'm looking to replace an older Mini with something else. There is a local shop selling 2006 and 2007 iMacs for $400-650. I'm considering one because I can make good use out of it for years to come. In attempting to argue about the value of Macs you have actually pointed out one of the more valuable things about Macs. Macs tend to age gracefully.

Sure there are some disgruntled G4 and G5 users out there who are furious that they can't run Snow Leopard. But they can run Leopard. And guess what? There are no commercial pieces of software out that say they require Snow Leopard. None (that I have noticed). I tend to agree 1.5 years is about the longest I could stand the windows boxes I've had over the years, but as I mentioned in a previous post, ALL our Macs are over 2 years old and the only reason I'm thinking of replacing one or two of our Minis is to get Facetime without resorting to usb cameras.

I'm typing on a 3+ year old white Macbook and it geekbenches at 3,000. The brand new Dell E6400 I got in November geekbenches at 3,000 as well. If I went for a new 13 inch Macbook Pro, it would geekbench at 5900, but my Macbook doesn't "feel" slow. I get to pick the time and place of my next Mac upgrade, and it's not brought on by some software I need or an update that got pushed to my machine that is making it run slow. In fairness I should mention that I don't do "heavy lifting" and only run computationally intensive stuff occasionally, but my system doesn't seem one bit slow, especially compared to Windows 7 (which is hobbled by the IT knuckleheads at my job.)

If you want some objective evidence about the resale value of Mac gear as a ratio of purchase price and have some time, I suggest you search "completed listings" at ebay for macbooks and imacs. I think you'll be surprised how much you can still get for used Mac gear as a percentage of original purchase price. Those 4 and 5 year old systems I was looking at the other day are selling at 40 to 50 percent of original retail and this guy's price was a bit below typical internet pricing because he's selling bulk lease turn-in equipment.

The heavy lifting is what I use my computer mainly for so explains the constant upgrades as new software comes out. Rarely is it a forced upgrade its more by choice or wanting a new feature. I tried out geekbench but it wont read all 16gb of ram only 5.99gb eitherway ended up with 10k(i7) on the desktop and my laptop 3500(i3). Not saying much about the i3 processor honestly since I tried it on a core2 duo 2.6ghz and ended up with 3100 that is about 6yrs old :/
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.