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.
Ok folks lets be real for minute and take a look at what the majority of the population uses their computers for. The average John Doe is doing the following:

- Surfing the net
- Checking email
- Hanging out on social networking sites like Facebook, Myspace etc.
- Online chat rooms
- Uploading photos and videos YouTube etc..

My point is that no one should have to pay the Apple $500 - $800 per machine tax just to do the above. You can buy the cheapest machine in the store to cover this list it really makes no difference in the world what OS is on the box or the processor speed etc.

yes, and up until about 5 years ago those people generally stayed with PCs and creative professionals generally opted for Macs. All of that changed when Apple, through a masterstroke of genius marketing and the success of the iPod, made owning an Apple "cool" and "status-y." My guess is that Apple better come out with a good netbook--even if they lose a little money doing so--so that they can stay on people's desktops in these troubled economic times. They could so easily make a MacBook Mini for around $600 (or $800 loaded up) and just sell the crap out of them.
 
Technically, the performance boost from UltimateDefrag isn't because it defragments any better than Vista's builtin defrag utility.

UltimateDefrag's Optimizer (and Diskeeper's I-FAAST™ and other like tools) are file optimizers - they'll move hot files to faster parts of the disk and close to each other, minimizing head movement.

This isn't related to fragmentation. And it's also of less value for systems used for many different tasks. If you optimize the file placement for one application, you're likely to de-optimize it for other apps.

For most people, there's little reason to buy a file optimizer - simply using the built-in free automatic defragmenter takes care of most of the problem.
3rd party fragmenters will rearrange the files like crazy, but shortly thereafter they will have to do it all over again, much earlier than would have been the case with the system's own defrag. They're going against how the file system operates. I've tried two of them and both ended up in a vicious circle of perpetual defragging, without measurable performance gains, and rather than let this tug of war between Windows and the defragger go on forever I just let Windows do its thing.
 
Also, if she is really budget conscious, why isn't she having them install Ubuntu and the freebie stuff.

After all she was buying based on hardware, anything Microsoft had no value here.

The Linux community of support companies should come up with an ad to nail MS on this. PC isn't equivalent to MS.
 
Good for her.

I'd rather not buy cheap tat.

My mate has a 17" Vista laptop she bought for £500.

Its been replaced twice and vistas ****ed many more times than that.

Issues with my Macbook Pro after 18 months? Nothing. Even after dropping it. (Free battery replacement after 9 months... yes FREE)

Issues with my 4 year old iBook? Nothing here still.

Issues with my 5 year old Powermac G4 MDD? Not a thing.

Issues with my new $4000 Mac Pro? Well... we'll see but im guessing NOTHING.

Rubbish advert proving you spend a little, get rubbish. I'd rather have the macbook than that £400 17" thing :/

End.
 
"Not I" said the duck.
Photoshop Elements does just fine for me. No need for Vista on my computer.

my point was that those software suits arent free on the mac

he made it sound as if buying office and photoshop was a negative with going to windows

What are you on about? My new $599.99 Mini came pre-loaded from the factory with CS4 and FC Studio, among others.

suuuure it did:rolleyes:
 
The Windows vs. OS X argument is completely intractable and totally a matter of taste, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could possibly argue that Mac hardware isn't overpriced. I knew Macs were expensive, but I was SHOCKED to see a reasonably powerful Mac Pro for $6,200. OVER SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS. That's with twin Nehalem quad-core 2.93 GHz procs, a 1 TB hard drive, and the ATi Radeon HD 4870 512 MB video card. I built a PC with the same exact specs on Newegg for about $2500 (Windows included). For six grand on Newegg, I could probably launch my own animation studio. Face it, you guys are paying for a shiny box.
 
With the launch of a Windows ad campaign, there's a thread on a Mac forum with lots of "new" users. As someone who has seen how Microsoft works over the years, is it that much of stretch to assume that some of the comments here might come from employees of the software giant.


Perhaps not. But it's a broad brush. Take care who you wield it against.

The situation for many users here is not a binary one, an 'either or' situation. Many people here own both types of computer, many here work on one platform during the day and use another when they get home. Some are dedicated Mac buyers but are still critical enough to recognise the flaws that exist. Complaining about these flaws is not a sign of treachery; it is a sign of a certain amount of consumer discontent.

I also take issue with the notion that a financially-successful company is doing well by its consumers when you start to break the numbers down. They may be selling a lot of iPods and other devices but my personal beef is with their desktop range where they've made the iMac the flagship model, the centre point of their 'Get a Mac' campaign. It has hampered realistic pricing points and features for the products around it due to Apple's longstanding habit of crippling competing products by upselling. Want a SuperDrive? Then you have to get the more expensive model. Want a matte display but a powerful enough computer? Tough, get a Mac Pro.

While Apple undoubtedly hurt their business in the past by having too many models in an undifferentiated and difficult to market range, I believe the pendulum has swung a little too far in the other direction. Besides, their passion for Macs seems a distant memory. It's almost all iPhone these days and while I partially agree with the statement that they're merely skating to where the puck is going, I also think they're doing their best to flick that puck in the direction they want where Macs become akin to a side business.
 
The Windows vs. OS X argument is completely intractable and totally a matter of taste, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could possibly argue that Mac hardware isn't overpriced. I knew Macs were expensive, but I was SHOCKED to see a reasonably powerful Mac Pro for $6,200. OVER SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS. That's with twin Nehalem quad-core 2.93 GHz procs, a 1 TB hard drive, and the ATi Radeon HD 4870 512 MB video card. I built a PC with the same exact specs on Newegg for about $2500 (Windows included). For six grand on Newegg, I could probably launch my own animation studio. Face it, you guys are paying for a shiny box.

Well, I could turn it around and say "face it: you are not in the Mac Pro's target demo." An $80,000 Mercedes pretty much does the same job as a $300,000 Bentley, but then I am not in the Bentley's target demo. The average buyer of a $6,000 Mac pro is not necessarily as cost conscious as you are, and they almost certainly have different needs than you do.
 
The Windows vs. OS X argument is completely intractable and totally a matter of taste, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could possibly argue that Mac hardware isn't overpriced. I knew Macs were expensive, but I was SHOCKED to see a reasonably powerful Mac Pro for $6,200. OVER SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS. That's with twin Nehalem quad-core 2.93 GHz procs, a 1 TB hard drive, and the ATi Radeon HD 4870 512 MB video card. I built a PC with the same exact specs on Newegg for about $2500 (Windows included). For six grand on Newegg, I could probably launch my own animation studio. Face it, you guys are paying for a shiny box.

You can't even buy the Xeon processors used in the Mac in the retail channel yet, so I call BS on this one.
 
Well, I could turn it around and say "face it: you are not in the Mac Pro's target demo." An $80,000 Mercedes pretty much does the same job as a $300,000 Bentley, but then I am not in the Bentley's target demo. The average buyer of a $6,000 Mac pro is not necessarily as cost conscious as you are, and they almost certainly have different needs than you do.

So, you're basically admitting that Mac people are elitist money wasters who care more about bling than actual bang. Thank you.
 
I was SHOCKED to see a reasonably powerful Mac Pro for $6,200. OVER SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS. That's with twin Nehalem quad-core 2.93 GHz procs, a 1 TB hard drive, and the ATi Radeon HD 4870 512 MB video card. I built a PC with the same exact specs on Newegg for about $2500 (Windows included).

Oh really? Which motherboard did you put those twin Xeon Nehalems on? :rolleyes:
 
you have to buy the same for mac. whats your point?

No you don't have to buy the same for a Mac. That's the point.

I don't own MS Office or Adobe Photoshop and I don't need them to do what I do.

iLife came with it. iWorks is $79 and there's Beans of some other OS X good free stuff.

I use Gimp and other multimedia and video tools instead of Photoshop CS4 etc..

Stuff that exists on OS X because the nature of the operating system.

With Vista I would be paying through the nose for tools (over a $1000) to do the things I do in as efficient and flexible manner as I do them.

so the idea because she can go buy $700 laptop just on hardware specs is getting the same thing as Macbook Pro is nonsense.
 
Well, it said "quad core Nehalem 2.93 GHz," so if it's not the exact same one, it must be pretty damn close.

Heh yeah except that you're talking about a consumer CPU which doesn't support more than 1 single socket per motherboard, nor ECC memory for that matter.

Not in the slightest bit anywhere close to a Mac Pro.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.