Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
They do? I've been using thinkpads for years and find it hard to consider anything else, but they still don't have my idea of a perfect machine.

They also sell tonnes of proprietary gear, and similar to apple, absolutely love and strive towards 100% vendor lock in. Huge service contracts, (pointless? but vital?) business software suites etcetcetc. They may be a hugely successful company, doesn't mean they're any good or 'know what people want' - Unfortunately most IT buying, consumer or business don't either :) +arrogance

I had a thinkpad and used it for 4 years. I then switched to mac. that thinkpad was my first computer. So i am new and i still think thinkpads are great.

Ok, i will count you as one who knows something about IBM. But i still think, they dont make that much out of thinkpads, do they?
 
Something I have never fully understood is why the 15" Macbook Pro's do not support very high resolutions. I understand the 15" supports 1440 x 900, whereas my fairly new company Dell M4400 15.4" laptop that has a compatible graphics card to the Macbook Pro supports 1920 x 1200. I had a 3 year old Dell D800 that was built like a brick but it still did 1680 x 1050. As a software developer I love my screen real estate. Can anyone shed any light on this?

I know the 17" supports better resolutions now but I want a 15.4" to do the same.

Thanks.
 
Hehe :D I used to be be a PC guy from 1982 until 2007. Then came Vista, and I decided it was time for something new...

I looked at Linux, but I gave up trying to remember syntax, when I moved to Windows. I know all the arguments for using shells, but I'm just too lazy. Ubuntu is a step in the right direction!

So I bought a Mac. Best Money I ever spend! ;) I love it! OSX is far superior to anything else. Just using Exposé is worth every cent.

But who cares about the price? In the old days Macs were very expensive, and their OS sucked (sorry, it did!). Nowadays the price differs far less, and here's my point:

Most people spend far more money on their car, than they do on their bed or their computer. Even though they spend a lot more time behind the screen, than they do behind the wheel... But of course you can flash your car more out there in public, than your Mac. Trying to look cool?!? (I find that kind of funny...) ;)

Ask yourself: Would I ever spend as much on a bed (which I use 6-9 hours everyday), that I use on my car? I don't even think it's possible to by that expensive a bed.

Ps. Even though I'm now a dedicated Mac user, my bed still sucks :D Gotta have a look at that next...
 
This ad really brought the fanboyism to epic levels (for both camps). Some of the responses here are hilariously uninformed and out of touch with reality. I hope MS makes more of these. :)

In the meantime, I'll enjoy all my PCs, whether they be Apple or Windows-based.
 
It's a fine advert they made there. I think that this message is right and that a company like Apple must improve their software regularly to counter the price difference. If all macs are medium-high end machines, they must include a lot more than just iLife.
 
Well, for one thing, cars and computers are completely different things. You don't want exotic or rare and incompatible parts on a PC. On a car, you can easily get away with that. One a PC, you seriously want compatible devices. And, guess what, just about every freaking PC part that's manufactured right now is made over in China. It sucks, I agree, but that's the way it is. If you want to change that there's going to need to be more political action, but that's a different topic. But since they are ALL made over there, and since we want compatibility, we're stuck for now.
No, no, no. I'm not arguing the fact that they have to use the same components as everyone else, or that they have good reason to build the machines in China. That's all fine and well. What I'm critical of is that they put a 25% Apple tax on generic hardware, or ask 6 times the street price for options such as extra RAM, when other computer brands are content with 2 times the street price for those options. BMW can give you a list of a billion things that explain why their cars cost more than a Kia, and all of those points will be valid and relate to the production costs. Apple couldn't produce such a list. The only reason they can produce is their extraordinary greed. Sure, you're in business to make money and I'm all for that, but there's a tipping point where it goes from healthy money-making instincts to disgusting, raw, blood-sucking, step-over-corpses greed, and Apple is waaaaaaaay beyond that tipping point.

Not only are the physical systems you interact with different (and, IMO, better) on a Mac (things like casing, keyboard, etc.)
There are PCs of excellent build quality too, you don't have to buy a low-end plastic bucket from Acer or Dell. Aluminium casing, backlit keyboard and LED screen aren't Mac exclusives.

but there's a critical thing here that doesn't have an equivalent in the car world (thus rendering your analogy silly): SOFTWARE.
Still doesn't warrant the higher cost. Every computer comes with software. You can argue software quality all day, but we're strictly talking about production costs here, and it's not like Apple spent more man hours on OS X than M$ did on Vista or Windows 7.

I think one of the first "Get A Mac" ads really showcased this. What's the PC doing right off? Downloading those new drivers and updates, erasing all the garbage trial software, installing the software you actually want to use... "It sounds like you have a lot of stuff to do before you do any stuff..."
I really don't know what they put on PCs in the U.S. that warrants all this talk about "garbage trial software". I've bought 4 Dell PCs here in Sweden, and all of them have been 100% clean out of the box with nothing other than Windows and hardware drivers installed. My first Mac on the other hand (a Mac Mini G4) came with loads of trial crap like iWork, Office for Mac and a couple of lame trial versions of games (something with dinosaurs, I don't remember). It was probably the same on my Intel Mac Mini and my iMac, I haven't bothered to look.
 
Adamo, anyone?

This ad is bull and yes Macs are overpriced because there is no competition! Yet I would go with Macs anytime!
 
I'd say it's about 50 times more interesting to hear comments from people who are critical of something, than to be in a club of synchronized yes-men who pat eachother on the back. And 500 times more interesting than people who drop the predictable "then what are you doing here?" comment.

If you're naive enough to believe that the majority of Mac users are a member of your aforementioned "club of yes men", then more fool you.

My issue with PC users is that they don't want to listen to why a Mac is "better" in our opinion, despite them asking the question in the first place. As I said before, it's almost like they enjoy watching us "justify" our purchase.

However, I find PC users even more arrogant than Mac users. I am aware that there are PC users who have never had a single virus or piece of spyware because they are careful and install the correct programs. Unfortunately, I've witnessed too many friends and family open brand new Windows PC's and have freezing issues, crashes, etc within the first hour ... usually greeted with, "Oh come on" as the impatience grows.

I'm more than happy to discuss with PC users, but while you don't want to hear Mac "yes men", we don't want to answer questions put to us only to have our answers deemed "arrogant" or simply dismissed as humour.

I bought/build many a PC in a period of 12 years before deciding I was sick of the operating system and the way it felt like a constant Beta programme for Microsoft. I was also very careful about the content I put on my PC, but at the end of the day you shouldn't need to walk on eggshells when using a piece of machinery, which is how I felt on a PC.

It will take a monumental effort from Microsoft to make me look at a PC again, and if I did ever buy a PC system it would exist alongside my Mac as a second system.

In my honest opinion, the reason a PC is cheaper is because of it's build quality first and foremost. The aluminum and glass iMac is the finest built home consumer computer I've seen. When sat next to the old white Intel iMac it looks more and more like a pro product than a consumer one. If you want a high quality build of PC, on par with a Mac, you need to either build your own from high quality parts (but run the risk of faults through home build) or buy a high end make ... although Alienware side I've not seen a single PC system that impresses me build quality wise. They all come across, in both look and feel, as flimsy and cheap.

Just my opinion.
 
They are right though. Now I'm out of university and no longer living off student loans the Mac bubble has burst for me. For £800 I can build an incredibly powerful PC with a great CPU, great graphics card, 8gb Ram. Or spend £1200 on a Mac Pro with an amazing CPU and not-so-great everything else.

I'll continue to buy Apple laptops but they can bugger off with their desktop machines.

I like OSX but not when I can get a much more better, high quality machine for less. And I'm no Vista fan so I'll be using XP.
 
But who cares about the price? In the old days Macs were very expensive, and their OS sucked (sorry, it did!). Nowadays the price differs far less
It depends, really. The pricetags on iMacs are quite decent, and the MBP 17" isn't too bad when compared to other high-end 17" notebooks with comparable specs. The Mac Pro on the other hand is ridiculously overpriced. It comes with a puny 3 GB of RAM, a lame nVidia card and a single 640 GB hard disk. The MBA is also terrible in terms of bang-for-buck, but the form factor is worth quite a few "Gucci points" so I'll leave that one alone.

Oh, and the MBP 15" is quite overpriced too. They give you a pathetic 1440x900 screen and still ask almost the same as for the MBP 17". And the Mac Mini, once a fairly cheap entry-level Mac, they've somehow turned into a "green" computer and put the Apple tax on it, probably thinking hey, enviro-suckers are willing to pay extra for biodynamically produced food so maybe they'll pay extra for a green computer too.
 
I really don't know what they put on PCs in the U.S. that warrants all this talk about "garbage trial software". I've bought 4 Dell PCs here in Sweden, and all of them have been 100% clean out of the box with nothing other than Windows and hardware drivers installed. My first Mac on the other hand (a Mac Mini G4) came with loads of trial crap like iWork, Office for Mac and a couple of lame trial versions of games (something with dinosaurs, I don't remember). It was probably the same on my Intel Mac Mini and my iMac, I haven't bothered to look.

Yea, I'm from Germany and worked in the US for a while. Had to setup new Machines at work. There's loads of crap, trials programs, virus scanners and viruses (to demonstrate that the scanners work I guess...) etc. on it. The problem is, that stuff is hard to uninstall right. On the Mac, you can simply drag the stuff you don't like to the trash and you're done.

I usually do a clean install of some customized Windows XP using one of the many licenses I (legally) got at school. Non-techies are scared of installing Windows.

Should I ever buy a desktop computer again, I'll probably buy components and do the assembly myself. If you're buying a computer for a specific purpose, it's actually cheaper than getting a PC from a store. For example, if you want a PC for gaming, you want the best graphics card for your budget, a high clocked CPU (games don't multithread that well), a mainboard that works well with your components, not too much RAM (you're usually only playing one game at a time) and one or two (raid 0) hard drives for short loading times. No need for quality components (except maybe the mainboard), if one breaks after warranty, just get a new, faster one.
My Macbook is my allround machine.
 
I think windows is very frustrating to use. I think OS X is less frustrating to use. To me, less frustration is worth $$$. I couldn't care less about appearing cool. Being a computer science student it's out of my reach anyway ;)
 
I'm curious if the 17" HP would still be under $1000 after 3 years.

My HP had to be replaced after only 2 years and 3 months. :mad:

Then I got my iMac and have never gone back. :D

My Dell lasted a littler under 2 years (with 2 hard drive replacements.) Then I got a powerbook g4. That was 5 years ago and it still works almost like new.:rolleyes:
 
I think windows is very frustrating to use. I think OS X is less frustrating to use. To me, less frustration is worth $$$. I couldn't care less about appearing cool. Being a computer science student it's out of my reach anyway ;)

Well, I don't know about that.

When the only computer on the entire campus faster than yours is the campus server itself (and only because of volume), you turn some heads.:cool:
 
The only way I've ever being able to afford to get a mac to start with was to either buy the entry level desktop in the case of the beige G3 range or to buy a used system from the previous range.

I've sold some old stuff I don't use anymore to get the money together for a used 2007 macmini and that's going to be my tie over intel system till I have the means to buy a mac pro.

The problem with Apple's inflated prices are that I could buy a brand new 2.8Ghz Quad core Mac Pro for 1,459 Pounds till the new range came out. Now it's 1,899 for a system with pathetic memory expansion options that isn't even based on an appropriate motherboard design for the DDR3 it's based on and by all accounts, they're currently useless for running Pro Tools as well!

It doesn't get better if you look at buying an older system either.

A 2.66Ghz Mac Pro with 2 x dual core CPUs and 667Mhz RAM is still selling USED at over 1,200. You'd think it would have to be 1,000 at the most given how close that is the cost the 2008 model that replaced it and someone on eBay is actually listing a BUY IT NOW price of over 2,100 Pounds for the 2.66Ghz system!
 
Well, I don't know about that.

When the only computer on the entire campus faster than yours is the campus server itself (and only because of volume), you turn some heads.:cool:

OK, so let's say that my definition of cool differs slightly from the Laurens of the world. Some friends of mine recently build a Turing machine out of Lego ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYw2ewoO6c4 ). I consider that cool :)
 
Effective Pricing

I agree with a lot of peoples' posts on this thread, both that this advertisement is effective, and that it has brought out some pretty heavy polarization between rival camps. I think the real message that it sends is that buying a PC gives people a real choice; getting a 13'' Macbook was this girl's only option for an Apple laptop, and being on a budget precludes her from getting something bigger at the Apple store.

When your laptop is your primary machine, screen size can be an important consideration. While her ultimate choice may be lacking in hardware, it has the distinct advantage of being $2000 cheaper than Apple's 17'' MBP. My dad has a 17'' Dell laptop, and he never hesitates to compare it to my 15'' MBP, crowing about the better screen size. Even though my computer has been far more reliable, has better hardware and accessories, I can't beat him on screen size. :rolleyes: The PC market does give you a choice for budget pricing, even if you ultimately get a less dependable machine.
 
My issue with PC users is that they don't want to listen to why a Mac is "better" in our opinion, despite them asking the question in the first place. As I said before, it's almost like they enjoy watching us "justify" our purchase.
Why would they necessarily be of entirely different breeds? I use both Macs and PCs and have so for many years, and nowadays there's BootCamp so a Mac user may well be a Windows user without being a PC owner.

It's just that the classic "Mac Switcher" arguments don't bite on everyone, and this is where the Mac faithful blow a fuse because they thought that the corny "10 reasons to switch to Mac" campaign is all it took.

You also have to realize that PC users didn't pick the fight, Apple as a company did. 99% of the polarization you're witnessing here comes from their own ads. They decided over 10 years ago to stoop to the lowest and most despicable form of marketing -- badmouthing the competition -- and they've stayed in that gutter for 10 years (technically it started earlier, but the "Pentium Toaster" campaign they used for the G3 launch in 1999 was the day they took the fight public). If they had chosen a different path, there wouldn't be nearly as much of an aggressive tone in these discussions, but Apple has underhandedly been calling PC users idiots/geeks/nerds/losers for 10 years, so in case you're wandering why they're coming at you with torches and pitchforks and demanding that you justify your purchases, ask Steve Jobs. Microsoft put up with it for a long time, and now it's payback time... and Apple fans go ballistic when they finally get a taste of their own bitter medicine. Surprise.

In my honest opinion, the reason a PC is cheaper is because of it's build quality first and foremost. The aluminum and glass iMac is the finest built home consumer computer I've seen.
This is true for many PCs, but always reflected by the price tag. There are however plenty of high-end PCs like Sony Vaios, ASUS, AlienWare and high-end (pro-line) HP and Dell machines that are every bit as well-built and sophisticated as Macs, and come with backlit keyboards, aluminium enclosure, glossy edge-to-edge LED screen and all that stuff. Dell has one with a 17" LED screen with 100% Adobe color gamut, something that not even Apple can match. And frankly the build quality has been a little flakey from Apple lately, it's not what it used to be.
 
Is that you Mr. Jobs? :rolleyes:

You spend nothing on a PC getting it "up to par" with a Mac. Even if you did buy extra software, you'd still be as much as $1,000 richer than you would be if you had bought a Mac.

No. About the only free software you can get that's up to iLife standards is Picasa. The others? Sorry, nothing else compares. You're going to be spending hundreds to get those features in software that good.

OS X is not a fantastic operating system. Why can't I cut and paste in the OS? Not copy and paste, cut and paste?

You just shot your credibility. Command-X, Command-P.

And you want to talk about downloading updates? If I do a fresh install of OS X right now, I'll have to download more, file size wise, than I would with my original copy of Vista.

Really? Because I have an original copy of Vista too. I recently re-installed. I had to update Windows Update before Windows Update would even work. Then I updated, again, and again, and again, each update I did meant there were now several more updates available. I counted this time. Wanna know the total? Ten. Ten updates and restarts. That's absurd. The total file size was somewhere north of 2GB when all was said and done. It's kind of hard to keep track of all that after ten restarts.

Downloading drivers? Vista gets drivers from Windows Update if it even needs it. Common things like Printers, scanners, digital cameras, memory card readers, game controllers, etc. work out of the box. Unlike OS X which requires drivers for printers and scanners ;)

Really? Because I just plugged in my printer. It worked. Oh, and the scanner, too (MFP).

Oh and all 3 of my Macs have had 2 pieces of trialware, the same way my 3 HPs have had 2 pieces of trialware.

I recently helped a young lady near me set up her laptop (Acer, I think). The total number of trial software icons was something like 8. But it was a low-end system. See below for more comments on this.

No, no, no. I'm not arguing the fact that they have to use the same components as everyone else, or that they have good reason to build the machines in China. That's all fine and well. What I'm critical of is that they put a 25% Apple tax on generic hardware, or ask 6 times the street price for options such as extra RAM, when other computer brands are content with 2 times the street price for those options. BMW can give you a list of a billion things that explain why their cars cost more than a Kia, and all of those points will be valid and relate to the production costs. Apple couldn't produce such a list. The only reason they can produce is their extraordinary greed. Sure, you're in business to make money and I'm all for that, but there's a tipping point where it goes from healthy money-making instincts to disgusting, raw, blood-sucking, step-over-corpses greed, and Apple is waaaaaaaay beyond that tipping point.

For monitors I'd agree. And RAM. That's just insane. But for the computers themselves, again, think of the software included. That stuff isn't made in a magical EZ-bake oven. It costs money.

There are PCs of excellent build quality too, you don't have to buy a low-end plastic bucket from Acer or Dell. Aluminium casing, backlit keyboard and LED screen aren't Mac exclusives.

And how much you wanna bet that those cost more and are more on par with Macbook costs? Also, if nothing else Apple *does* have a point about such systems not only being nicer to use but also nicer to the environment. (Recycling = awesome. But hey, Macs have higher resell value. Why not sell it instead? And at least when it's finally time for it to be put to rest more of it can be reused.)


Still doesn't warrant the higher cost. Every computer comes with software. You can argue software quality all day, but we're strictly talking about production costs here, and it's not like Apple spent more man hours on OS X than M$ did on Vista or Windows 7.

No, no, we're talking business and supply and demand. Which means quality DOES matter. If you have a piece of crap product competing with my quality product, I'm going to charge more.

And MS does make Windows. But they don't make anything like iLife.


I really don't know what they put on PCs in the U.S. that warrants all this talk about "garbage trial software". I've bought 4 Dell PCs here in Sweden, and all of them have been 100% clean out of the box with nothing other than Windows and hardware drivers installed. My first Mac on the other hand (a Mac Mini G4) came with loads of trial crap like iWork, Office for Mac and a couple of lame trial versions of games (something with dinosaurs, I don't remember). It was probably the same on my Intel Mac Mini and my iMac, I haven't bothered to look.

Higher-end PCs have stopped using excessive trialware, thankfully. However, what is there is almost invariably more damaging to overall system health than on the Mac. This has to do with both how OS X is designed and the, to be frank, horrid quality of most trialware software on PCs.

And that's it for me. I've got too much to do over the next few days to keep this up.
 
They might be more expensive to start with, but I've managed to sell every Mac I've ever owned for a decent price when upgrading to a new model. Try selling a 3 year old PC and see what you get!
 
I think Microsoft screwed up with this ad. Apples problem isn't with their laptops. IMO the prices aren't that bad for what you get. It's Apple's desktop line that is a complete joke. Who would buy laptop parts in a desktop computer? The only desktop Apple makes that's nice performance wise is $2,500 or higher.
 
Something I have never fully understood is why the 15" Macbook Pro's do not support very high resolutions. I understand the 15" supports 1440 x 900, whereas my fairly new company Dell M4400 15.4" laptop that has a compatible graphics card to the Macbook Pro supports 1920 x 1200. I had a 3 year old Dell D800 that was built like a brick but it still did 1680 x 1050. As a software developer I love my screen real estate. Can anyone shed any light on this?

I know the 17" supports better resolutions now but I want a 15.4" to do the same.

Thanks.

well, i think that illustrates the mac philosophy. a higher res 15.4 inch MBP would lead to smaller fonts and icons. that makes the computer less usable to many. so apple goes with what the average user might like and does NOT offer what some users like. I happen to be happy with the current res on the 15.4 inch. but apple leaves a lot of users behind by simply not offering enough choices. and that is true for many features. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.