"Macs are so much more expensive" - actually, I disagree

[chrismac00]

I also think that Macs are cheaper. You get more than what you pay for I think. My dad was always telling me that a MacBook was too expensive but then I explained to him.

He wanted to get me a Dell that was about $900 in total with all the things that I need. And then I explained all the details especially iLife, which was one thing that really attracted me to Macs. For me iLife should cost like $400 and it comes with any Mac. There aren't any viruses and that keeps you from spending about $70 a year on Anti-Virus software. And Macs go super fast and they include a webcam. So I finally convinced him but he told me to wait until Summer 2008, but he surprised me for Christmas. So I guess he took my advice and bought it, because it's cheaper in the long run.

And I'm happy!

 

[pr5owner]

omg do you ppl have a freaking clue AT ALL computer computers?

DELL IS NOT THE ONLY OTHER BRAND other than apple open your eyes!

FFS both dell and apple dont even make hardware.

quanta and compal make dell laptops (depending on line, inspiron or latitude, xps, etc)

Asus and Honhai (and previously Quanta) make the MB and MBPs

macs are more expensive? you disagree? well how about this comparison

MB Black ($1,649.00)
2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x512MB
160GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
Superdrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth


Asus F8SA-X2 ($1099.99)
2.2GHz (SAME CPU)
1GB Ram 667MHz (SAME Ram Amount and speed)
160GB HDD (SAME HDD)
DVDRW (both have super multi's)
ABGN WIFI AND BLUETOOTH (included)

diffrence?

the Asus has an ATi HD 2600 512MB ram
5 USB Ports instead of a useless amount of 2
VGA out
DVi OUT
Svideo OUT
1.3MP swivel camera

what makes the MB black worth it? NOTHING

FFS $~600 can buy you TWO eee pc's

thats 3 laptops with 1 absolutely wasting the MB in graphical performance and 2 ultra mobile laptops. (WTF would you pay $1200 for a crappy notebook with onboard graphics?)

wanna try again?

MBP 17"
$3,099.00
sh*tty 1680x1050 screen
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 - 2x1GB SO-DIMMs
160GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 17-inch Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
no fracking card reader
1 year warranty
only 90 days of tele support WTF kind of cheap asses are they?

Asus G2S-A1 (newegg)
$1749.99
WUXGA (1920x1080)
SAME CPU
SAME RAM
SAME HDD
LIGHT SCRIBE ODD (mac doesnt have this)
SAME VIDEO CARD!
5x USB PORTS!!! NOT F*CKING 3
Svideo OUT
VGA OUT
HDMI OUT
Comes with a gaming mouse
A CARD READER!!!!!!!!! 5in1
1.3mp camera

1 Year accidental damage (you break it, they replace it)
2 year warranty (PARTS AND LABOR!)

you wanna say apples worth it? yeah right, there are about 20 more laptops similar in spec to the asus. thats $1350 cheaper, you can buy 2 additional laptops, probably faster than the MB's IN ADDITION to the Asus and still be cheaper than this rip off POS MBP 17"

 

[pr5owner]

I also think that Macs are cheaper. You get more than what you pay for I think. My dad was always telling me that a MacBook was too expensive but then I explained to him.

He wanted to get me a Dell that was about $900 in total with all the things that I need. And then I explained all the details especially iLife, which was one thing that really attracted me to Macs. For me iLife should cost like $400 and it comes with any Mac. There aren't any viruses and that keeps you from spending about $70 a year on Anti-Virus software. And Macs go super fast and they include a webcam. So I finally convinced him but he told me to wait until Summer 2008, but he surprised me for Christmas. So I guess he took my advice and bought it, because it's cheaper in the long run.

And I'm happy!

its cheaper in the long run? HOW? again, DELLS are not the only freaking brand name out there, open your eyes. dell is actaully more of a rip off than apple is. $70 a year for AV software? when you can run ubuntu for free? no... macs go super fast? not incomparison with XFCE linux distros, macs have the same HW, actaully thats a lie, macs have inferior HW since with asus whitebooks you can put your own QUALITy components inside. apple uses the cheapest garbage ram they can find and charge you some rediculous price for it.

EX: 4GB of ram in a mac costs F*CKING $770 for an UPGRADE (this is some kind of cheap samsung or hynix ram i would assume) running at the standard 667MHz speed

on newegg $109 for 4GB of OCZ (life time warranty) ultra high speed DDR2 800MHz ram

ive already made use of the OCZ warranty when i fried my 1GB rally usb drive from static shock, they sent me a 2GB USB flash rally 2 OVERNIGHT FEDEX.

OCZ has unbelievably good service.

 

[pr5owner]

And don't forget that PC users have to pay more for anti-virus programs and they didn't realized it's the same amount of $$ as mac computers. Ya know what I mean?

i didnt think a free AV program such as AVG or Avast would cost $1350 (see above)

also PC users dont have to use av programs at all if running linux, plus linux comes with free AV programs (see eee pc)

I've alway found that Mac's are priced comparably to PC's when configured similarly, and of similar quality.

Sure, I can get an Acer Laptop for $400, but the whole thing is made of cheap flimsy plastic and a slow CPU with no memory.

Price out a decent Lenovo, or HP laptop with a Core 2 Duo @ 2.2Hgz, Vista Business, etc, and all of a sudden it's the same price as a Mac.

The problem is, people are willing to take the cheap PC's for the lower cost, so we end up with the "PC's are cheaper" argument...

you may need to rephrase your statement

yeah Acer aspire line of laptops are total crap
acer ferarri and acer travelmate high end laptops which are still cheaper than the mac equiv are made with carbon fiber.

HPs are garbage and i dont even concider them computers
lenovo is for business only

why not compare Asus, MSI, Sager/Clevo, hell even LG, but not sony.

a $1200 Acer laptop will have an 8600GT 256MB video card, 2GB of ram, 2.2GHz cpu, and a 250GB HDD

no $1200 MB is going to cut it.

also there is no mac laptop for under $1000 but there are TONS of PC laptops for $600 that out perform the mac.

 

[dejo]

pr5owner, please read this: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4542947/

 

[CalBoy]

pr5owner, please read this: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4542947/

I was going to say something similar, but since you've already done all the work for me...

pr5owner, please keep in mind that there are other specs that are important for notebooks outside of the traditional CPU/RAM considerations you've given us. For example, weight and size are two very important factors for most notebook buyers (especially for those who travel).

 

[canucks-17]

Christ sakes pr5owner, cool your jets. That ASUS is ugly as **** and the eee is worthless (power, size, operating system, etc). Besides they can't run OS X, in my mind a main selling point. Also, that thing is a gaming computer, not a Professional Workstation.

 

[K-Funk]

Re:

I just ordered a 2.2 Ghz Dell Vostro 14-inch with 2 GB of RAM and a 160 GB hard drive for $749. I configured a comparable MacBook on the Apple website, and it came to $1524!

So for my purposes, the Dell cost less than half as much. Now I'm sure the Mac has some stuff that's better than the Dell, but nothing I need. (I would never use iLife.)

I'm sure that depending on your needs, Macs might compare more favorably with different configurations, but the bottom line is that you can get a good PC laptop for under $1000, which is impossible with a Mac.

It is true that Macs have incredible resale value. That's not really relevant for me because I plan to use my new Dell until it doesn't run anymore!

 

[66217]

That's true, there are cheaper PC's out there. But normally, similar PC's and Macs would cost the same.

Now, there are some other things that I prefer from Macs than purely hardware. For one, Mac OS X is incredible, and also the design, I am yet to see another either Desktop or Laptop design that competes with a Mac.

 

[Music_Producer]

pr5owner.. first I'll prescribe you an anxiolytic agent.. someone's really pissed off about the price comparison When I buy an Apple product, I buy it for the operating system, and the hardware too (hell it's beautiful!) That's like marrying a beautiful woman who can cook awesome food as well! (ok ok don't flame me please hehe)

Like I said earlier, I bought a $1200 pc laptop which was top of the line (this was after I had purchased a 12" powerbook g4) Top of the line regarding specs and weight too.

Sure the pc laptop beat the powerbook in terms of specs.. but on a more practical level.. it sucked (windows obviously) Damn thing would heat up while I would just be using quicken! I was running pro apps on the powerbook and it remained cool.. silent beast. The pc laptop is worth $200 now, we don't use it.. it's a paperweight (not to mention the bloody 40 minute battery life) I gave it to my wife and she didn't want it.. she wanted a macbook after using that pc for a few hours.

The 12" powerbook sold for more than $850. Paid a $100-$150 more and got a new macbook for my wife.

So please, before you a burst another vein.. go ahead and buy an Acer or whatever. I don't know about you.. but I like a return on my investment. When I buy an Apple product, I get more than a 100% ROI! And I love using it for the OS and the hardware form. After 2 years when your Acer fetches $200 on ebay, and my macbook pro gets me $950 or so.. then you'll know which one is more 'expensive' in the long run.

And I bought a separate card reader for $25.

 

[MINI.ME]

Macs can be more expensive than PC's, but in the long run, which computer lasts longer? Mac! Why? Well, the main reason would be that they are virus-free. I have a 3.5 year old Dell PC at home (which has been replaced by the new iMac), and just one single virus can stuff everything up!

An iMac G3 I used at school booted in 1:20. Dude, that's quicker than my Dell (2:15)!

So even though Macs can cost a bit more than a PC, it's all worth it in the long run.

 

[netdog]

Curiously, compared to similarly specced workstations from Dell and HP, the Apple Mac Pro 2.8 Octo is a real bargain, even if you want to just run Windows on it.

 

[wordmunger]

Those Asus computers are 5.7 and 9.6 pounds. They are 1.5 and 1.83 inches thick. You pay for portability. Try spec'ing a computer that's actually the same physical size as a MacBook.

Also every MacBook user knows you can spec the same white MacBook for $150 less than a BlackBook.

 

[clevin]

If you take a Mac and a PC of similar spec,

problem is

YOU HAVE TO, "if" is a delusion! you have no choice! why "if"?

while with windows, you have so many cheap alternatives w/o paying for unnecessary, expensive, low quality hadrwares

The Mac comes with a much greater compliment of software - video editing, Mail (does a PC have this?), photo editing software, DVD authoring software etc.

cab't blame windows, did you know M$ paied $600m just for the bundle of media player 11?
and you ask if windows have mail pre-installed? first I would suggest you try to dig some information about windows before making comparison.
and yes, windows has mail pre-installed
also, windows media player will automatically download codec when playing video files.
windows also has weather forecast pre-installed, windows also has directX pre-installed, windows also has media center pre-installed, ...etc..

If you add word processing etc. software, Apple's iWork costs just £45 opposed to MS Office's £304 (amazon.co.uk).

huh, why is there a mac version of M$ Office? and so many people here are excited about it?

And if you want to upgrade the operating system - Leopard £79, Vista £200.
And by the way, I think iWork is great - especially for £45.

huh, you pay windows update every 6 years? so its 200/6=33.3
for OSX, its every two years, so its 79/2=40
not to mention M$ wrote all its own system, while OSX have (MY GUESS) majority codes ready for them by OSS. Its actually more expensive for end users for NO reason!

Originally Posted by supremedesigner
And don't forget that PC users have to pay more for anti-virus programs and they didn't realized it's the same amount of $$ as mac computers. Ya know what I mean?

this type of 5 years old mis-information keeps popping up, do mac users live in a sealed world and really know nothing about pc anymore? please, at least know your enemy before making statement.

please, mac IS expensive, lets just put that to rest once and for all.

there are more any more (probably ~40% of current mac users based on the change in marketshare) new users who REALLY know PC and windows. This type of absurd comparison won't go very far. And Im gonna say it will backfire.

 

[DoogieWoogie]

please, mac IS expensive, lets just put that to rest once and for all.

there are more (m)any more (probably ~40% of current mac users based on the change in marketshare) new users who REALLY know PC and windows. This type of absurd comparison won't go very far. And Im gonna say it will backfire.

You have just contradicted yourself - you say that Macs are expensive then in the next paragraph you say the comparison is absurd.

 

[brguitarist]

I really hate these arguments, but I am fully convinced that macs really are not expensive. For the same specs IN GENERAL, macs are cheaper (standard configs for apple are high-end systems in he PC world). EVEN if some PC systems may be cheaper than their respective mac machine, the mac is sure to outlast the PC, making it a better investment...

 

[PNW]

, why is there a mac version of M$ Office? and so many people here are excited about it?

Comparing iWork to MS Office is like comparing a mini to a Mac Pro. If you need the latter there is no substitute, but for the vast numbers of us who only ever needed to former the reduced cost is welcome.

this type of 5 years old mis-information keeps popping up, do mac users live in a sealed world and really know nothing about pc anymore? please, at least know your enemy before making statement.

For the most part yes, but still running a Windows box requires being or having free access to near IT support staff level of skill. Not so much with OS X

 

[clevin]

Comparing iWork to MS Office is like comparing a mini to a Mac Pro. If you need the latter there is no substitute, but for the vast numbers of us who only ever needed to former the reduced cost is welcome.

well, to talk about reducing the cost, isn't openoffice the best solution? and If I remember correctly, it is cross-platform, and cost $0

For the most part yes, but still running a Windows box requires being or having free access to near IT support staff level of skill. Not so much with OS X

it IS meaningless to generalize users,

I need no IT with my windows box for 8 years, and my 4 years old laptop didn't need any re-installation of windows in 4 years. Is that representative of all windows users? probably not.

SOME mac users still "think" windows anti-virus app costs users a fortune, is that representative of the understanding of windows from mac users? I don't know

NO IT help needed for mac users? are you sure? I know my mb can't print to department copier, even with IT help. is that representative?

95% of the world computer users need IT support? Im not sure about that.

For any normal/average users, with a mac, or a pc, with which he need more IT support? Now thats a good question, and I don't think you can be sure about the answer.

 

[wordmunger]

Again, the Vostro is thicker, wider, and deeper than a Macbook. You pay for portability. The Vostro is 57 percent larger than the Macbook. In fact, it is bigger (in volume) than a 17-inch MacBook pro.

 

[chewietobbacca]

The reason why Mac's tend to last longer / have better resale value is this:

Mac's go through fewer hardware refreshes! Hence, if you want a recent Mac, you're going to either have to pay for the new one coming out sometime within the next year or two (gulp) or buy the one that was released a year ago, which is your only option.

Case in point with PC's: When I recently built my high end enthusiast computer, I started doing research in March 2007. At that time, the P965 Intel motherboard was the reigning mainstream/performance motherboard from Intel. B the time I actually built my computer in late August 2007, the Intel P35 had been released which was superior in every fashion to the P965 and made the P965 irrelevant. I could've paid $160 for a P965 in March, but 5-6 months later, I was paying $160 for the P35 whereas the P965 had dropped to below $100.

Denali9 made a great point: if you buy a Mac at its refresh, it's worth its value in hardware. Buy it a little bit later? Not so much. For instance, the Mac Pro with Penryn is a pretty good buy, especially with the 1600fbs processors which will be priced fairly high for PC release. Wait 6 months? Eh not so much. For example, when Intel release quad cores, the Q6600 was priced close to $1000. After a half a year, it's currently at its $266 price.

It's pretty clear that the reason why PC's depreciate faster is because there is more and better and cheaper hardware available at a faster pace! Basically, there's more competition and more variety to choose from.

The Mac Pro may be worth its price now, but in a year when Nehalem comes out and makes old server/workstations outdated? Well, PC's may have the flexibility to move on but someone who wants a Mac Pro is either going to wait for a refresh within the next year or pay a premium on outdated hardware.

And whoever suggested that hardware was going to fail because of viruses - it still came from a software issue, and honestly, virii don't just magically show up. You have to download sketchy things to get sketchy results. If you never open email attachments from unknown sources, download porn or pirated software, you should be virus free 99% of the time.

 

[K-Funk]

Again, the Vostro is thicker, wider, and deeper than a Macbook. You pay for portability. The Vostro is 57 percent larger than the Macbook. In fact, it is bigger (in volume) than a 17-inch MacBook pro.

That's true. But I don't think there's that much value to reducing a laptop's thickness, because you're still constrained by the screen size.

For example, if you make a laptop 1-inch thin instead of 2-inches thin, you've cut the volume in half, but would an average person look at the 1-inch version and say, "It's half as big!" No. I think it's more useful to compare surface area (and, of course, weight).

 

[PNW]

well, to talk about reducing the cost, isn't openoffice the best solution? and If I remember correctly, it is cross-platform, and cost $0

For reducing cost yes, but both the Mac version of OO, which requires you to install/run X, and NeoOffice which runs natively are IMHO kind of lame when compared to the Windows and Linux versions of OO. So at $80 iWork 08 was really welcome

it IS meaningless to generalize users,

I need no IT with my windows box for 8 years, and my 4 years old laptop didn't need any re-installation of windows in 4 years. Is that representative of all windows users? probably not.

SOME mac users still "think" windows anti-virus app costs users a fortune, is that representative of the understanding of windows from mac users? I don't know

NO IT help needed for mac users? are you sure? I know my mb can't print to department copier, even with IT help. is that representative?

95% of the world computer users need IT support? Im not sure about that.

For any normal/average users, with a mac, or a pc, with which he need more IT support? Now thats a good question, and I don't think you can be sure about the answer.

First I didn't say need an IT department, I said "near IT support staff level of skill". There's a difference.

How many Windows users toss out their boxes after 2-3 years because they are "too slow", when all they really need to do is to wipe the drive and reinstall the OS?
How many Windows users know you no longer need to shell out "protection" payments to Symantic or McCaffee? Most of my XP using friends/ family didn't until I told them.

 

[clevin]

For reducing cost yes, but both the Mac version of OO, which requires you to install/run X, and NeoOffice which runs natively are IMHO kind of lame when compared to the Windows and Linux versions of OO. So at $80 iWork 08 was really welcome

indeed, and its much faster under windows. if our initial intention of the office suite comparison is indeed as OP stated, then OO under windows is cheaper than iWork under OSX, without being "lame"....

actually, if you ask me, M$ office vs. iWork should not be a issue here when OP tried to compare the expense of windows box and Mac. It just makes no sense.

First I didn't say need an IT department, I said "near IT support staff level of skill". There's a difference.

How many Windows users toss out their boxes after 2-3 years because they are "too slow", when all they really need to do is to wipe the drive and reinstall the OS?
How many Windows users know you no longer need to shell out "protection" payments to Symantic or McCaffee? Most of my XP using friends/ family didn't until I told them.

Its still hard to imagine 95% of the computer users in this world are that "High Tech".

There might be one or two or maybe 10 things you can argue against windows, just as you did. but I highly doubt windows being popular is because its difficult to use. and Im sure there are 20 or 30 things people can argue against OSX.

You ask how many windows users do this or that. but as far as percentage is concerned, how many mac users make stupid mistakes as well?

To be honest, I never heard anybody around me that actually paid Norton for anything. You just can't generalize the whole user population based on own experience. after all, there are how many windows users out there?

 

[K-Funk]

Re:

Here's what I see as the problem in Apple's product line-up.

Take someone like me, who wants a computer primarily for web-browsing and word-processing. Even if I like OS X better than Windows, I'm not going to pay over $1000 for a MacBook when I can get a comparable PC for hundreds less.

On the other hand, Apple has done such a good job of marketing that a ton of people who really know nothing about computers (and don't care about operating systems) will indeed pay hundreds extra for a MacBook because it's "cooler."

 

[killerrobot]

I totally agree. I really hate it when people tell me iWork (or Google Documents, or Open Office, any other "Office-killer") is comparable to Office. If you think it is, then you shouldn't be using office in the first place. I started salivating when I realised what I could do with Excel and VB. It's a shame OSX-only users will never have that experience, as it seems like Office: Mac is developped as if it was Office's little retarded half brother.

Office was originally designed for Mac, and then went to windows world. It still has many more features on the Mac side than the Windows side.

And don't forget that PC users have to pay more for anti-virus programs and they didn't realized it's the same amount of $$ as mac computers. Ya know what I mean?

Any windows user still paying for an AV program needs to stop paying for it and use AVG or another free one.

Macs can be more expensive than PC's, but in the long run, which computer lasts longer? Mac! Why? Well, the main reason would be that they are virus-free. I have a 3.5 year old Dell PC at home (which has been replaced by the new iMac), and just one single virus can stuff everything up!

An iMac G3 I used at school booted in 1:20. Dude, that's quicker than my Dell (2:15)!

So did your 3.5 year old Dell quit working or did you quit caring about using it?
I would say the main reason for lag is the user. Get all the crap out of startup that doesn't need to be there, and realize the limits of the machine. I have a 12 year old 486 that boots Windows 3.x in 50 seconds.

after all, there are how many windows users out there?

Even more now that they can run on Mac.

So which one is more expensive - the one that people are willing to pay the most money for based on their needs. 25k for the most pimped out mac is more expensive than 600 for a dell desktop and 25k dropped on a pc is more than the mac mini.