Why a Mac costs more than a PC...

[Giuly]

You know that Apple considers Aqua as a piece of modern art and has copyrighted their artwork?
Leonardo DaVinci wouldn't paint you a blonde "Maria Lena" because you like blondes better.

 

[sysiphus]

You know that Apple considers Aqua as a piece of modern art and has copyrighted their artwork?
Leonardo DaVinci wouldn't paint you a blonde "Maria Lena" because you like blondes better.

So what? Just because Apple can't imagine their stuff isn't beyond reproach means that you should settle for a lack of flexibility/customizing? Suit yourself...

 

[wordoflife]

In my opinion, Macs aren't expensive.
They are what they are - you get what you pay for.
That is all to it.


To some people though, they don't need any iLife like suite on a PC or Mac (I don't really use it either) but I already said my viewpoint about Macs.

 

[fullmanfullninj]

Well, the post makes sense. And makes some really accurate points. So that's pretty cool. Actually really useful too! Cept for pirates, I guess software price isn't really a factor
But I think what every good post (of this sort) needs is some sort of conceit. PCs aren't THAT bad, I don't think, haha. They have their advantages, imo.

 

[ramzhh]

That's cute, but how about not deliberately finding an awful-looking GNOME config? You can make any desktop environment look awful if you want. What exactly was your point?
Face it, Win7, GNOME, and Aqua are all plenty good enough (I personally despise the current iteration of KDE, but that's for another thread). At this point, none of them have flaws such that the user experience is significantly impacted. And if you really want to get picky, try looking up who had fast user switching first. How about multiple desktops? (Hint: "Spaces" wasn't exactly an original idea from Apple). Or what if you want to skin/theme your desktop? No 3rd party tools required for Windows or GNOME. The point is this: a simple "my GUI is better than yours" argument is a waste of time. So how about pointing out something special/unique about the OS that actually makes a functional difference?

There isn't one true magic difference. It's all about the little things in the GUI and such.

 

[Sequin]

People still pay for software? Gosh.

 

[dipm06]

Great topic indeed.

I have yet to see someone browsing and working actively on a 10 year old computer. I got an almost 10 year old PowerMac G4 Dual 800, yes, even flash videos do run on that thing! And of course it boots faster than any SL Intel mac out there.

In general you can definitely say Apple hardware got less and less quality INSIDE (rather cheap sound chips, no Texas Instruments anymore, subpar HDD models of choice, questionable choices of LCDs) but has about the same level of quality OUTSIDE (solid design that is to last more than 2 years of extensive use). Yet one has to mention how the Macs got CHEAPER AND CHEAPER over the years! Nobody seems to remember the PowerMac costing 3000 USD easily a couple of years ago.

Apple makes computers that generally last, are generally reliable and a joy to use.

i have 2 10+ year old dells that can run perfectly.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

i have 2 10+ year old dells that can run perfectly.

I've got 5+ Dells/HPs and 2 IBM ThinkPads that don't.

 

[Tomorrow]

People still pay for software? Gosh.

As opposed to what, stealing it?

 

[dipm06]

I've got 5+ Dells/HPs and 2 IBM ThinkPads that don't.

i have 4 macs that cant run wow and they are all less then 4 years old while the 10+ year old ones do.

 

[blunderboy]

This really is a subjective cost assessment. If you need to have the latest and greatest processor, graphics card, etc and don't particularly care what OS the computer runs, the PC might be the best deal for you. If non-Apple operating systems are a dealbreaker for you, then the cheapest Mac in your budget would be the best deal. It depends on what you want and need out of a computer, what you can afford, and what you're willing to deal with in tradeoffs.

 

[sysiphus]

There isn't one true magic difference. It's all about the little things in the GUI and such.

And this is precisely the point. The main perceived advantages of OSX are in the GUI--and given that all three players have very solid GUIs, it's just not a big deal. Furthermore, if (hypothetically) OSX's Aqua is the be-all end-all best GUI (which I would certainly argue it's not), it's quite simple to almost perfectly emulate its look and feel in GNOME. I'd still love to hear one coherent argument beyond "I like X GUI better than Y GUI" as to why OSX is supposed to be so far and away the best OS around. Don't get me wrong--it's quite good--and if you could get it on a wide range of hardware (i.e. get a superlight with more than one USB port, something smaller than a 17" laptop with card slot(s), a desktop tower with midrange hardware while maintaining expandability options, a decent choice of cost-competitive graphics options etc etc) I'd consider going back to it. For me, the extra bit of work required to set up a Linux install exactly to taste is well worth the flexibility and low cost...but if I could license a copy of OSX for my Thinkpad, I'd consider it [at least as a secondary OS to dual-boot]. (I realize that/why this won't happen, but that's not the point.)

In short: I don't argue that OSX is a great piece of software. It's not ideal for my use/tastes, but it's quite good. With that said, given that a modern Mac is just a PC in a pretty case, the cost-benefit is hamstrung by the small array of hardware options, many of which are either not cost-competitive, feature-limited, or some combination of both.


Here's my question for the pro-Mac crowd: what about OSX makes it the deal-breaker in your decision? What features can you not replicate elsewhere?


As for the question about free software, there's plenty of free legal software. I'm not running a single piece of paid software on my Fedora 13 install, and it's all legal/properly licensed. This is my primary OS which handles everything I did on OSX. (I have to dual-boot Windows to run 3D CAD software for my engineering work regardless of if OSX or LInux is my primary OS)

 

[Giuly]

Here's my question for the pro-Mac crowd: what about OSX makes it the deal-breaker in your decision? What features can you not replicate elsewhere?

As for the question about free software, there's plenty of free legal software. I'm not running a single piece of paid software on my Fedora 13 install, and it's all legal/properly licensed. This is my primary OS which handles everything I did on OSX. (I have to dual-boot Windows to run 3D CAD software for my engineering work regardless of if OSX or LInux is my primary OS)

I have an iPhone, libpod/GtkPod doesn't sync it. Requires me at least Windows XP in VirtualBox on GNU/Linux.
I'm used to a full-featured shell to run small scripts for convenience and not code it as a program in at least Virtual Basic .Net, that requires me at least a GNU/Linux server distribution running in VBox on Windows.
So, at least I myself need both at the same time, I prefer GNU/Linux with Windows in VirtualBox here, too.

Yes, there is a whole lot of free software, and the idea behind is great. The underlying OS of Mac OS X is free software itself, compatible to GNU/Linux with little effort, which was the deal-maker for me. But there is about 10% "quality software", if you look over to SourceForge, Berlios, FreshMeat - you name it. The rest is either command line only and Mac OS X runs it too, or low quality. On Mac OS X, those 10% high quality apps are mostly available native, or run in X11 (i.e. GIMP). Besides, with Quartz and the whole rattail behind it (Cocoa, CoreGraphics, CoreAnimation, CoreWhatNot), even the the simplest low-quality apps look great, because they use the Apple Human Interface Guidelines at least at some level. This is due to Interface Builder beeing lots more comfortable then Glade or Kdevelop's GUI designer, and it forces you to implement these guidelines, and assists you with it. It takes little effort to make a GUI with the look and feel of an Apple product. Glade lets you drag and drop together what every you want in freedom, it doesn't care about the Gnome Interface Guidelines itself, not that there would not exist such a thing. Mac Developers where kind of sandboxed until 2007, because you coudn't just install Windows on you Mac and run the software there, so there have been very different philosophies and approaches to write software, and still are today.
Besides, in contrast to GNU/Linux, there is software for Mac OS X which you can actually buy, and that boosts software quality when you could theoretically compile most GNU/Linux stuff for Mac OS X. If you want to sell your stuff, it has to be better than your free competitor.
A recent example for me is ScreenFlow. Ever saw anything near that on GNU/Linux? I only know vnccap and Xvidcap. They do it's job, capture a video off the screen, XVidcap even with audio. Not more, not less. But ScreenFlow is a whole different approach, it's more than just hijacking the video output from X11 and the sound from ALSA.
That are the reasons why I choose Mac OS X over any GNU/Linux distribution (And that's what I used for about 10 years as my primary OS. I started coding in Visual Basic back then, and I was in love with GNU/Linux first time I booted up Redhat 7.3, even though I didn't had any clue about C/C++ or even Bash).

I leave the GNU/Linux vs. Windows argumentation to you, as I don't used it for anything more than iTunes and Internet Explorer over the years. All I see which differs on Vista or 7 from XP is a nicer theme, Preview images in the start menu bar, and redesigned system preferences. I could have missed some über-feature.

And if you need Windows for CAD, you need Windows for CAD.

 

[capn7]

But you're forgetting something....

What about just making a Hackintosh? Wayyyy cheaper.

 

[Giuly]

But you're forgetting something....

What about just making a Hackintosh? Wayyyy cheaper.

A $1200 i7 machine without an at least $800 27" screen in comparison to the iMac? If the hardware isn't even cheaper at all, how could a hackintosh be cheaper? You could use a $200 24" screen, you'll be fine with a TN display. But the 27" IPS screen is a different thing. Sure, you can extent it with harddrives and PCIe cards, but external harddrives are cheaper today than bare ones, and beside graphics cards, RAID cards and ones that supply you with USB or FireWire ports, I can't think of much that would require that. iMac has a XMM card, so you could even change the graphics if you like (and happen to find one that's superior to the iMacs)
iMacs and Mac Pros are due to update tomorrow or next Tuesday, we'll do the math again later.
If Apple starts with i7 quad-cores in the Mini for $1200, that stuff gets weaker. Damn Intel and their licensing.

 

[ReanimationLP]

I just want to say, the quad-core i7 mobile is an insanely fast processor, even at 1.6GHz.

You, as a mac fanboy, should know not to believe that MHz myth that Apple was preaching years ago.

Not to mention this processor will ramp up anywhere from 1.6GHz to 2.8GHz depending on its workload, as well as it has hyperthreading.

In terms of multi-tasking, more cores will always beat out raw clock speeds no matter what.

 

[Giuly]

I just want to say, the quad-core i7 mobile is an insanely fast processor, even at 1.6GHz.

You, as a mac fanboy, should know not to believe that MHz myth that Apple was preaching years ago.

Not to mention this processor will ramp up anywhere from 1.6GHz to 2.8GHz depending on its workload, as well as it has hyperthreading.

In terms of multi-tasking, more cores will always beat out raw clock speeds no matter what.

For the last sentence, I told that anywhere in this thread. As soon as I recognized that it turbos as high as a higher clocked dual core, I corrected even the speed stuff. Raw GHz IS better for single-treaded applications, but they turbo high for that application.

But they have a TDP of 45W, the CPUs in the MacBooks are 35W. An i7 MacBookPro has a battery lifetime of 8-9 hours of "wireless productivity", whatever that may mean, compare that to the idle battery lifetime of your favorite i7 quad core laptop.

 

[dipm06]

For the last sentence, I told that anywhere in this thread. As soon as I recognized that it turbos as high as a higher clocked dual core, I corrected even the speed stuff. Raw GHz IS better for single-treaded applications, but they turbo high for that application.

But they have a TDP of 45W, the CPUs in the MacBooks are 35W. An i7 MacBookPro has a battery lifetime of 8-9 hours of "wireless productivity", whatever that may mean, compare that to the idle battery lifetime of your favorite i7 quad core laptop.

the envys have very good battery life. with the extended battery theyre rated "up to 14 hours"

 

[Hellhammer]

But they have a TDP of 45W, the CPUs in the MacBooks are 35W. An i7 MacBookPro has a battery lifetime of 8-9 hours of "wireless productivity", whatever that may mean, compare that to the idle battery lifetime of your favorite i7 quad core laptop.

TDP is the maximum power consumption. When idling, the i7-720QM might actually consume less because the unnecessary cores are shut down in order to save battery life and it features lower clock speed. MBPs have great battery life but other manufacturers are catching up

 

[Giuly]

TDP is the maximum power consumption. When idling, the i7-720QM might actually consume less because the unnecessary cores are shut down in order to save battery life and it features lower clock speed. MBPs have great battery life but other manufacturers are catching up

Tell that the "up to 3/4.5/(1h DVD playback) hours" Sony states for their 17" i7 quad-core laptops. Or the 95 Minutes idle(!) with WiFi disabled(!!) battery lifetime of that Alienware laptop, or 55 minutes under full load. Did we mention that the 15" and 17" MacBooksPros have 2 graphics and use the nVidia graphics only if needed?

As for the Envys, HP doesn't even state battery lifetime for the 17" quad core i7.
For the others, 15" i7 Envy for $1800 w/ slower CPU, lesser battery lifetime vs. $2200 15" i7 MBP. Deside yourself if battery lifetime and a faster CPU is worth $400 for you. Same goes for the $1700 13" C2D Envy w/ better graphics vs. $1500 13" MBP w/ faster CPU.

 

[mgridgaway]

Sigh. Are we still on about this?

Just get whatever makes more sense.

Do you like a nice clean environment, quality 1st party apps, and have an appeal for aesthetics? Do you like not really having to worry about viruses and going wherever you want on the interweb? Get a mac.

Do you like more bang for your buck hardware-wise (this is not debatable; I can build a faster PC with high quality components for about $1000, another $200 or $300 for a nice monitor puts it right around the same as the base iMac. The only way I'd lose out would be trying to build a comparable Mac Pro... server quality parts are expensive; you might as well just get the Pro)? Do you like actually playing games in any sort of high quality setting (you know, like Starcraft 2, which is an absolutely abysmal experience on OSX)? Are you ok with second rate designs and an operating system that isn't OSX? Do you like not having to worry about any sort of cross-platform issues because the vast majority of the world is on Windows? Get a PC.

For the record, despite my grievances with Apple, I still prefer my mac. I couldn't see myself going back to a PC for my main computer.

 

[xi mezmerize ix]

Why do people have an account on this site (MacRumors) if they are just going to praise PCs so much.

 

[Hellhammer]

Why do people have an account on this site (MacRumors) if they are just going to praise PCs so much.

Just because I'm a member doesn't mean that I have to be a blindfolded Apple fanboy who cannot see the shortcomings of Apple's products.

This conversation doesn't get any further because it's too opinion based. Macs cost more because Apple has the market and monopoly for OS X and they have no reasonable competition. As long as the sales remain pretty same, there is no reason to lower the prices. Money is the only thing Apple really cares about

 

[xi mezmerize ix]

Just because I'm a member doesn't mean that I have to be a blindfolded Apple fanboy who cannot see the shortcomings of Apple's products.

This conversation doesn't get any further because it's too opinion based. Macs cost more because Apple has the market and monopoly for OS X and they have no reasonable competition. As long as the sales remain pretty same, there is no reason to lower the prices. Money is the only thing Apple really cares about

I'm not a fanboy either but when I buy a product I don't bash it and praise its competition.

 

[Giuly]

Just because I'm a member doesn't mean that I have to be a blindfolded Apple fanboy who cannot see the shortcomings of Apple's products.

This conversation doesn't get any further because it's too opinion based. Macs cost more because Apple has the market and monopoly for OS X and they have no reasonable competition. As long as the sales remain pretty same, there is no reason to lower the prices. Money is the only thing Apple really cares about

Macs shortcomings here, PC shortcomings there. Either way, $$$ fill those shortcomings. If you just care about CPU, graphics and RAM, sure there is a cheaper PC. If you want a 100% comparable machine, the PC may be a $100 or two cheaper. If you don't care about software, you're still fine. If you do however, those $200 get ate up easily if you start to buy software. If you are a software-delinquent (or what ever you want to call that, pirate is a little less rude) however, you go ahead and get the software anyhow for free anyways. If you get a $29 Snow Leopard DVD and put together a Hackintosh, that's another thing and is somehow Apples fault because the MacMini is underpowered and could easily incorporate a mobile quad core i7 (No battery lifetime to worry about here) and the 21.5" iMac is too overpriced, even if it could be updated to nVidia 330m graphics and an i5 (people want to read i5 or i3 rather then Core2Quad even if it's faster) for $1200, but quentionable anyways because Apple puts the price of the software inside the price of the hardware. The $29 is just symbolic, for the distribution of the DVD and the stickers inside. The $79 for iLife too, because they're just "Lite" versions, simplified for normal users of the expensive Pro software Aperture(iPhoto), Logic Studio(GarageBand) and Final Cut Studio(iMovie and iDVD(?)), and Apple has to develop that anyways for Pro users, because there is the money as these guys buy (octo-core) MacPros with 30" Cinema HD displays for big money, because they actually earn money with them. iLife is just a by-product. Go ahead and buy Aperture, Final Cut Studio and Logic Studio, you get a 17" PC i7 laptop for the price of those. Then you have to put however these $200 in work and time while setting the Hackintosh up.

Just a question what you prefer, it's all kind of philosophical.