digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at blogs.eweek.com

Should We Pay Twice as Much for a Mac?

blogs.eweek.com — Retail average selling prices for Windows notebooks are about half the price of Mac laptops. Shall I repeat that?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • wedges, on 08/07/2008, -34/+106the bottom line is that buying the Inspiron they mention means you've got to run Vista. sure, you can install Linux or a crashy version of OSX86, but let's be honest: most mac users buy them because they run OSX.
    • shadoweva09, on 08/08/2008, -3/+22The problem with the Inspiron is not Vista, it's that dell does not enable RAID and ahci in the bios like intel recommends for its chipset. doing that will speed it up to a normal speed. (enabling raid and ahci will void your warranty, and cause vista to blue screen everytime it boots because it will use the wrong hard drive driver until you install/repair vista.) It seems 99% of Vista problems are caused by the manufacturer anyway. (1 gig memory vista systems, this bios thing, etc...)
      • drmsux, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7I didn't have to reinstall...
        sc config msahci start= boot
      • warriorscot, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2It is really easy to fix, most motherboards don't have AHCI enabled as standard, dell just don't go to the trouble to change that.

        It took me 2 minutes to activate the AHCI drivers in Vista reboot and install the intel AHCI drivers it is not a hard job.
    • hmunkey, on 08/08/2008, -21/+45That really doesn't warrant paying twice as much. Apple overprices their products by a lot.
      • manitoba98xp, on 08/08/2008, -11/+22The statistic is accurate, but misleading. While the average purchase price for the Mac is certainly higher, Apple does not compete in certain markets (the budget or midrange midtowers, to be specific). So if you compare equivalent pieces of hardware (Dell's XPS M1330 to the Macbook, for instance), you'll find relative parity.

        The differences in price aren't nearly the chasm this suggests – it simply means that Mac users tend to spend more money on their machines, not that they wouldn't if forced to use other brands.

        (And before you bring up the iMac, look at the XPS One, or the Gateway One, or any of the other "integrated desktop" solutions offered by other vendors. It's simply more expensive to compress parts into that form factor.)
      • shahvikram123, on 08/08/2008, -3/+5manitoba98xpmanitoba98xp pretty much summed up the whole argument; "Apple does not compete in certain markets (the budget or midrange midtowers, to be specific). So if you compare equivalent pieces of hardware (Dell's XPS M1330 to the Macbook, for instance), you'll find relative parity."

        Plus you buy a mac because of OS X not the hardware…
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 08/08/2008, -3/+5"Apple does not compete in certain markets (the budget or midrange midtowers, to be specific)"

        But the HP example in the article was a much better machine than the Mac. Are you saying that Apple's standards are low?
      • dragon76, on 08/08/2008, -2/+6NEWS ***** FLASH Retail selling price of Gap clothes twice that of Wal-mart.
      • manitoba98xp, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2@UltraMegaFilms

        I would submit that they are built differently. I don't know about about HP's product line as Dell's, so I'll use Dell as an example. Dell offers three product lines for consumer notebooks – Inspiron, Studio and XPS. If you take the baseline XPS M1330 ($999 CAD), you'll find that you can easily configure an Inspiron 1525 or another of the lower-end products to similar specifications at a cheaper cost.

        Does that mean one would be stupid to buy an XPS M1330? Absolutely not – there's a difference in quality between the lines aside from specifications. This exists even _within_ a single brand.

        What makes it difficult to compare Apple is that they only compete in the higher product lines, so if you're looking for the cheapest notebook on the market, you won't find a Mac that meets that criterion.
      • warriorscot, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Apple focuses on the assholes with more money than sense segment of the market.

        Honestly I would rather buy a windows laptop I can dual boot and give the difference to charity than buy an Apple computer. OSX is not worth the premium people pay for it, its certainly not the worst OS in the world but its really not the best, considering you get fantastic operating systems for free now I don't see how people can justify wasting money on a mac.

        I can think of allot of things that money could better go to.

        Also the comparisons are for macs vs. low end machines in the windows/linux market if you look at laptops of similar price you get way more for your money, better CPUs, better GPUs, more memory, a better motherboard and higher build quality compared to an apple computer.
      • cdubd, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4There is a lot more to it than just the hardware. Many laptops feel cheap, and poorly manufactured by comparison to an Apple computer, and they don't come with nearly as much software out of the box. If you wanted to buy programs that gave you the same ability as the iLife suite on a windows machine, you would be spending a lot of money. Clearly people feel it is worth it to buy Apple computers, that is why the company is so successful. They are just not for everybody.
    • cyberfreak01, on 08/08/2008, -10/+18i think you hit the nail on the head there. People are paying the extra because it's a Mac, not because the hardware is so great. They like the design, they like OSX, they like having something different and trendy.
      • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -18/+9cyberfreak01 is right...the key word is trendy...I've owned 3 vista machines and not one has crashed... and any "glitches" were very easily resolved by very, very basic computer knowledge. Oh but I don't get to use garage band....FAIL. If you can't do in a PC what you can do in a MAC you are an epic failure.
      • cmiller1, on 08/08/2008, -4/+17Why does it have to be because its trendy? They design fantastic machines and have a great OS, I know lots of old *nix geeks who have macbook pros and powerbooks now because the whole solution just works so great for them. And unix geeks aren't exactly known for being trendy, stylish guys either, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf ...
      • cyberfreak01, on 08/08/2008, -0/+7I'm not saying they aren't well designed, however I know plenty of people that bought ipods just because all of their friends had ipods without considering any other music player out there. So there is defiantly a trendy side to their sales, not saying that is the only driving factor. I listed several reasons. Trendy being just one.
      • njren78, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1I don't own a Mac because it's different and trendy. I own a Mac so that I can run OS X. Hardware doesn't matter to me, since I can get the same hardware from another company and run Windows, or I could run Windows on my Mac (and I do). It's the OS. Trendy goes out the window (I hope) when people grow up and become adults and it becomes time to choose the platform that works best for them based on usability and overall value.
    • Wakuko, on 08/08/2008, -27/+20BREAKING: A Mercedez SL 500 is more expensive than a Tata Nano!

      Oh noez!
      • pintomp3, on 08/08/2008, -7/+21i was unaware they use the same engine and drive train.
      • Fonix, on 08/08/2008, -4/+8Please don't try to use cars as an analogy for this, if you can't talk about hardware/software intelligently... just don't do it
      • potisreallygood, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Mercedes changed the name to the SL 550 a couple years ago.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1What was Tata doing during WWII?
      • potisreallygood, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2The Tata Nano's rear wheel bearings are made by bunch of FAG's.

        http://www.ae-plus.com/Key%20topics/cc-Tata-news3. ...
      • Elranzer, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5That would be a valid comparison except that Apple is not the Mercedes of the computer industry. They're more like Volkswagan (unnecessarily more expensive than Toyota, less practical and their owners think they're making some kind of statement by being a corporate whore)
    • DanBoodro, on 08/08/2008, -5/+5I'd have to agree with you there. I'm sure if Apple opened OSX up to the PC, software sales would go through the roof, but their hardware sales may start to see a slight down slope. And they would really have to market it well for normal people to understand that it's a PC operating system. A lot of PC users don't quite understand how to choose an operating system, because they never really had to. It was always been Windows. Remember I'm talking about the average consumers here, not us techie nerds.

      I have my PC quad-booting OSX 10.5.2, XP SP2, Ubuntu 8.04, and Vista Ultimate, simply because I love all 4 of them for certain features and reasons, also because there's some software for one OS that's not for the others.
      • hexydes, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3I thought people bought Apple computers because they were such fantastic machines that had the best parts though. It should stand that releasing Mac OS X as a standalone to boot on regular PC hardware shouldn't affect sales of their hardware one iota, because people don't just buy it for the software...

        ...right?
      • DanBoodro, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3No, you're completely right, but I'm talking about slight margin of users who love OS X but don't feel like purchasing Apple's semi-expensive hardware anymore. Yes there is the Mac Mini and the Macbooks really don't cost too much at all, but just for that slight margin, which is exactly why I said "hardware sales 'may' start to see a slight down slope". Good point though, thanks for bringing that up.
      • dragon76, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Man, this horse is not only dead and beaten but it's starting to be puréed. APPLE MAKES MONEY ON HARDWARE NOT ON SOFTWARE. If selling operating systems for random hardware was so lucrative, what happened to OS/2 and BeOS? Now bring out the apologists giving you every reason under the sun why those two OSes failed.

        Apple tried the clone market and it's not lucrative, for anyone. Apple has more market cap than Dell.
    • alperea, on 08/08/2008, -13/+24only a true fanboy would warrant a 1000$ increase for an os. I'm not saying OSX is bad, but it's definately not worth 1000$.
      • duckley, on 08/08/2008, -13/+15How about comparing machines with equal hardware specs for a change !!!

        Sure, the Mac would be more expensive, but not that much more.

        And you'd get a FAR better environment to work with. I know: I use a Mac 10 hours per day, and a PC 4-5 hours per day. (For the last 18 years).
      • cawpin, on 08/08/2008, -2/+11RTFA - They have a similar machine comparison and it's still twice as much. I have a MBP and I love it but Macs ARE more expensive for equal hardware. There also isn't NEARLY as much free software available for them. Let me add to that. There isn't as much USEFUL free software for Macs. Everybody wants their little app to be their money maker. If they were $5 like they should be, and not $20, I might consider buying one.
      • ZephyrNinety, on 08/08/2008, -6/+1It's the OS and very stable, well thought-out hardware. And the way the guy did those numbers is retarded. A Mac Mini is $600. Not to mention, the average PC price might be around $560 but that's without a monitor unlike an iMac.
      • shahvikram123, on 08/08/2008, -4/+6you clearly ain't done your research; there's loads of freeware and open source software for OS X. Check this link out: http://www.freewareosx.com/
      • burrgrinder, on 08/08/2008, -3/+4Free software? Almost everything I need is free and looks good, and if you're anal about free and don't care about looks, you can always compile/find a linux package for OS X

        Please...free software availability is such a weak point. Yes, Windows has "more" of it, but most of it is crap, already cross-platform, or it's duplicated software. For the 5-10% of stuff that you do need to pay for on OS X, you'll probably have to pay for it on Windows too.
      • iamgnat, on 08/08/2008, -3/+6@capwin - Not nearly as much (useful or otherwise) free software?

        AdiumX - Free and arguably one of the best IM clients out there.
        TextWrangler - A solid free Developer's text editor.
        FireFox
        iCal, AddressBook, Mail, Safari - Could also be argued as free and are quite useful.
        Xcode - Free and decent. The first is definately not something you can say about Microsoft's developer tools...

        Then there is the fact that just about anything that can be built for UNIX/Linux/BSD can usually be built on OS X as well and you have Fink and MacPorts to make that process much simpler for those that aren't familiar.

        And that's just covering stuff that I use on a daily basis. The only apps I have paid for since I started using OS X are Photoshop, TextMate, FinalCutPro, iWork, and Neverwinter Nights (and it's expansions). I've survived quite well for almost 8 years now using mostly built-in and free software both at home and work (the only additional paid-for app I use at work is ARD).

        In my experience, there is probably a decent free version of what you are looking for out there though finding it can some times be a challenge. More importantly, I have always found the quality (crashes, odd bugs, simple/consistent UIs) of free Apps for the Mac far exceed what I used to get with free Windows apps (given ~2001 is the last time I really used Windows, so the general quality of free applications *may* have improved).
      • bradleyland, on 08/08/2008, -2/+6OS X is the only Unix operating system I've ever used that has never required digging through documentation or posting on a community help forum to accomplish basic tasks. If buying a Mac at the prices Apple sells them for makes me a fanboy, then so be it. Market dictates price. If people were unwilling to pay Apple's prices, they would have to lower them. For my money, my MacBook works great, and I don't have to fight with the OS to get ***** done.
      • dragon76, on 08/08/2008, -2/+6I love how people say "they compared equal machines" when really all they did was find a machine with a similar processor. READ THE ***** ARTICLE. THEY TELL YOU IN THE ARTICLE THEY ARE NOT EQUALLY CONFIGURED. The Mac has bluetooth, wireless and a webcam built in and then they say "that costs extra on a Dell" but they don't ADD the extra cost. That's like saying an iPod Touch is equally configured to an iPhone even though you left out the cell radio.
      • kingcam, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3@Dragon76

        You RTFA!
        The article states that while the Mac has bluetooth, wifi and a webcam the PC has a Quad instead of a duo, 3x the memory, and 2x the HDD space. I can get a webcam for $50, and a wifi card for about that, so stop trying to pretend that the article has an anti-apple slant.
      • mrBitch, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1@iamgnat RE: "Then there is the fact that just about anything that can be built for UNIX/Linux/BSD can usually be built on OS X "
        Same here - I have not had any issues finding free OS X native software since I switched from Windows over a year ago.
      • njren78, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1You're entitled to that opinion.
    • duckley, on 08/08/2008, -19/+21What's your time worth?

      I spend 1 hour per month maintaining my Mac (sys, backups, etc)...
      I use it about 10 hours per day, VERY productively.

      I spend 2 hours per WEEK maintaining my PC (sys, installs, anti-malware, crashes, backups etc)...
      I use it about 4-5 hours per day, GRINDING my teeth much of that time.

      If I never had to use a PC again, it would be a joy.


      ( And that doesn't count my wife's constant trouble with her PC laptop )

      • hexydes, on 08/08/2008, -2/+11Really? On my Vista HTPC, I installed Vista, and that's it, I haven't had to do anything else. I'm not a Microsoft fan either (I don't care either way, I use Windows/Mac/Ubuntu almost equally), and I think Vista missed the mark on quite a few things. However, to pretend like one would never have a problem with a Mac but would have daily struggles with a PC is ridiculous. If you know what you're doing, you'll almost never have a problem with either of them.
      • Kazimieras, on 08/08/2008, -3/+14If your PC is crashing, having malware installed, etc then you are NOT using it properly. A mac may be more appropriate for you and your skills, but don't bash the device if you can't use it properly. That is like someone claiming stickshift sucks since they only can drive automatics.
      • cawpin, on 08/08/2008, -2/+6Stop ***** up your machine and you won't have any malware problems. I've had exactly 2 viruses infect my machines over the years. The second I knew would happen because it was an acquired piece of software from the net. If you're being infected more than that, it's your fault.
      • dysonlu, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7What are those so-called "crashes" people talk about? My Windows PCs haven't suffered an OS crash for years and I've been using Windows every single day at work and at home.

        If your Windows machine is crashing and has been infected with virus and malware, the problem is YOU, not the OS.
      • bacterio, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1Why do you spend so long maintaining your Mac? Mine does the backups daily when I sleep, with Deja Vu.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 08/08/2008, -3/+4I work in the motion graphics industry, and my trusty Vista Ultimate rig gets me mocked constantly because I am the only ***** without a G5 at my office. They mock me until their computers ***** their pants and I have to take their projects and rescue the footage before deadline. Vista is a great OS.
      • utnow, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3You people are all delusional... Put an average person behind a mac and a windows-running PC and you'll find VAST differences in the types of problems people have.

        Windows: It keeps popping up something saying that I need to install new drivers off of the disk or search the harddrive... or check online... do i need to activate this? What is WGA? Maybe it's a setting somewhere... check the control panel... no? maybe it's in the bios... well reboot with the disc in the drive and see if that'll work. No? Let's try the wireless configuration tool. Pick your security key encryption type... now type the 64digit hex key exactly. Still nothing? Load up the run registry listing to see what's all is loading when the system loads. Hmm... well do a search to see if there are some other entries somewhere. Yeah delete all that.... etc, etc, etc.

        Mac: I can't figure out how to burn a DVD. No drivers? No bios to speak of? Oh it's that round button in the corner? Thanks!

        This "all operating systems are good in their own way" ***** is played out. Windows Vista is a disorganized random-ass piece of *****. XP was decent... and 2k was good at the time, albeit lacking in the driver/compatibility department. There was a time when they could stand shoulder to shoulder with OSX, but that time has come and gone.

        Ubuntu is getting *close* to competing as a desktop operating system...But until I feel like the mouse is occupying the same physical layer as the windows (and dragging them around doesn't feel like 1990's virtual reality where the hand lags a good 1/2 second behind the motion it'll always be a muddy substitute in that arena) and so-far as I can tell most any stable *nix OS is going to do a server's job better than the big two... but that's another discussion for another day.
      • warriorscot, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3What on earth do you do with your windows machine, if you set them up properly the first time they rarely need any maintenance unless you are an idiot and do things you shouldn't on any OS.

        If it is crashing on a weekly basis your machine is BROKEN I have run Vista since RC1 and it has NEVER crashed from a software error, it has always been problems with hardware and those usually my fault for messing with the hardware. I also on 5 years have not gotten a single malware infection or actually had to initiate a malware scan or defragging as it was all done on schedules which I setup after I installed the OS.

        If you have to grind to get things done you probably aren't using it properly which is a problem for people who switch between operating systems, It happens to me switching from Linux back to windows having to get used to the different way the OS handles things.

      • kingcam, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1@utnow,

        Last time I checked average people just didn't install new drivers... the the limited amount of heavy computer usage an 'average' person does most will never have a reason to upgrade. Hell, 95% of the PC users I know have never had a reason to look at the BIOS.

        All that I got from your post is that apparently you think that the 'average' PC user is smarter than the average Mac user because they are doing fairly high-end things with their computer... your hypothetical Mac user cant even burn a DVD.

      • mrBitch, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1@utnow RE: "This "all operating systems are good in their own way" ***** is played out. Windows Vista is a disorganized random-ass piece of *****. XP was decent... and 2k was good at the time, albeit lacking in the driver / compatibility department. There was a time when they could stand shoulder to shoulder with OSX, but that time has come and gone."
        - It will take the market another few years to work this out, buy shares while they're cheap.
    • xtraa, on 08/08/2008, -8/+15For me, Leopard is the main reason but not the only one.

      You get some extras in the hardware, like: Apple was the first with built in Webcams or Bluetooth, Firewire 800. Even the glossy display is not so mirror-like - compared to my girlfriends Dell. You have a better touchpad, it's twice as big and the Air even supports multifinger gestures.

      Pricing:

      Macs are not more expensive. in fact, most of them are cheaper _when_the_new_product_is _released.

      But: They *get* more expensive compared with other PCs over the time. This is a common problem that you have if you sell your product line only in your own shops and distributive ways.
      • redwallhp, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5Apple was also the first company to start putting Wi-Fi cards in their laptops (the old clamshell iBook). You could argue that they popularized Wi-Fi, possibly.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 08/08/2008, -5/+5I'm sorry Xtraa, that's incorrect! But don't worry, you won't go home with nothing...

        You're going home with your very own, sense of self satisfaction! Sure, go ahead and tell yourself whatever you need to feel better. You'll be flying high above your peers with your brand new ivory tower!
      • xtraa, on 08/10/2008, -0/+2lol @ UltraMegaFilms :)

        fyi I have a MacBook and a Hackintosh, so I don't really care about brands.

        But feel free to tell me what exactly you think was incorrect. If you talk about the part with the pricing, let's take the MacMini: Tell me what noiseless barebone system with the same specs was at the market for not 200% of the price for a macMini. Same for the Macbook.

        Respond or you failed epical :)
    • RKangel, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1If Mac users like OSX so much why do so many run windows on their Mac? Do they just like paying more for hardware? Is it a status thing so people will think you're cool but you're really still running Windows?
      • duckley, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2"run windows on their mac"

        They don't. Why would they want to?

        Many PC mags state often that, when configured identically, Macs offer equal or better value over the long run.

        That is the conclusion reached Year after Year.

        I have both a Mac and a PC, and I agree.

      • mrBitch, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1@RKangel RE: "If Mac users like OSX so much why do so many run windows on their Mac?"

        Only reason I haven't deleted my Windows partition is for games. So, because I occasionally play a game of TF2 under Windows, this means that I MUST use Windows for everything else?

        You are an idiot.
      • njren78, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2I run Windows on my Mac so that someone else can play Sim City 4. That's the only reason. I had an extra hard drive and Boot Camped Windows on it. Sim City 4 for Mac was missing some features, and I figured it didn't bother me at all to have Windows run on a separate hard drive, so the other person can play a game.

        I also have Parallels installed because I was curious about it. I used it to boot into Windows while still in OS X in order to file taxes for a previous year when the OS X version of TurboTax wasn't available for Mac, so it helped a little to have Windows running in a window inside OS X.

        I think it's misleading for you to say that "so many" people run Windows on their Macs. Most of us have it set up for that "once in a while" activity when we think we might need it. For me, that's been one time in the last 3 years. I've set up new Macs for others who swore that they needed to be able to run Windows on it as well. They hardly ever use Windows. They just felt a little better switching over and still have Windows there if something came up and they needed it. For most, it's a security blanket. Once they start using OS X, they abandon Windows,
      • mrBitch, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1RE: " I've set up new Macs for others who swore that they needed to be able to run Windows on it as well.

        They hardly ever use Windows. They just felt a little better switching over and still have Windows there if something came up and they needed it.

        For most, it's a security blanket. Once they start using OS X, they abandon Windows "

        That's very true - the fact that I could install Windows on a MacBook was a point that finally made me "switch".

        I now only boot into Windows to play games - everything else I do on OS X (games is all Windows is good at, and the only reason I haven't deleted my Windows partition).
  • jisrael, on 08/07/2008, -18/+135This would be a lot more convincing if they actually compared machines with identical specs. Bluetooth and Wifi are not included on the dell machine and while he mentions that those bring the price up, he doesn't specify how much. He could have beefed up the Harddrive on the mac as well for a more accurate price comparison. He failed to mention the remote control included with the iMac, which may not be a huge deal, but it is a heavily used peripheral in my house...

    I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just saying this wasn't nearly as in-depth as the story purports. Also, I think Apple is trying to keep up with demand while PC makers are trying to create it.
    • TheCash, on 08/08/2008, -29/+17You're joking, right?

      1) yes, wifi comes standard on almost every single laptop dell sells. Wanna add bluetooth? 20 bucks please.

      2) Wanna control your system with a remote? No problem, Vista Premium and Ultimate both come with Media Center functionality, which lets you veiw your media similar to Apples Front Page thats compatible with 3rd party remotes you can pick up from amazon or newegg for *gasp* 20 bucks.

      So there ya go, 40 bucks. That leaves most Macs at a 160-360 dollar premium to similarly spec'd PC's. You're right, thats just a drop in the bucket.
      • ZachSka87, on 08/08/2008, -5/+5Don't even try, man. The fanboys will slaughter you here.
      • roomforpanic, on 08/08/2008, -2/+101) jisrael was referring to the desktop machines (iMac and Mac Pro) which all come standard with wifi and bluetooth. Dell's desktops do not. And, no, it will not cost you $20 to add both to the pc.

        2) Adding a 3rd party remote with external IR receiver is neither as graceful nor desirable as using the one that came from the computer manufacturer and was designed to work with the system. And it's Front Row, not Front Page.
      • zigziggityzoo, on 08/08/2008, -0/+7Look at the desktops compared. A tower/LCD combo compared with an iMac (built-in to LCD). Try the Dell XPS One next time.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1Or better yet, compare the Dell to a G5. Apple is ridiculous!!!!
    • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -14/+50Wifi to the 802.11n spec, an LED backlit monitor at a higher resolution, ability to drop in 4 gigs of ram and have it all recognized, firewire 800, aluminum case, backlit keyboard...the list goes on and on. A year of applecare (my macbook pro has broken twice in the year that I've had it, and both times the fix was under an hour at the apple store and FREE)

      These articles are always written and agreed with by those who don't actually own a mac.
      • greevar, on 08/08/2008, -12/+15Applecare sucks quite honestly. If you ever damage the case of your Macbook, Applecare won't even touch your laptop without a check. Whereas with Dell's accidental damage protection, if you drop it, sit on it, spill on it, forget it on your car roof and drive over it, your drunk sister-in-law stomps it out of retaliation toward your brother, Dell will fix it. If it can't be fixed, they will replace it with a laptop of equal or greater value depending on what they have available.
      • scarper86, on 08/08/2008, -7/+16"...my macbook pro has broken twice in the year that I've had it..."

        That's quite a ringing endorsement for Macs. I own a Mac, but if mine broke twice in one year I wouldn't be singing its praises. It's amazing what people will excuse just to remain blindly faithful to a corporation.

        A-hand-me-down dirt-cheap Toshiba laptop that cost all of about $400 on sale 2 years ago was used hard by my nephew and now runs 24/7 as my music jukebox in the rec room and I haven't had a single problem with it. Yet many would laugh and say that it's a piece of ***** compared to your superior Mac that's been in the shop twice. Hmmmm
      • cmiller1, on 08/08/2008, -5/+10Greevar: applecare just took my 2.5 year old powerbook, banged to *****, with missing keys and a half physically broken screen hinge, and gave me a brand new macbook pro for free
      • alphgeek, on 08/08/2008, -12/+5Wow your laptop BROKE? Twice in one year? That sucks man. None of my windows laptops have ever broken...WTF is that about?
      • NYCowboy, on 08/08/2008, -2/+9it was not free you payed for it when you got the notebook
      • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -8/+6@scarper86: Go ahead and assume you know the story before asking. My macbook pro broke twice due to overheating issues---because I do enormous source compiles--and I USED to tweak the builds to thread a little more efficiently between processor cores so that they wouldn't take three days. Evidently I wasn't very good at that kind of thing, because I popped the fan both times I did it.

        I stopped doing it, and now its all fine.

        By the way, the same thing under Ubuntu on a Thinkpad melted the bottom case.
      • HonestAbe, on 08/08/2008, -8/+4Your laptop broke two times in one year? Just because you were compiling code with it? What a piece of *****.

        My Dell's hard drive died after 4 years of continuous use, and they replaced it for free even though it wasn't under warranty, just because of a single complaint on a public forum. I didn't even ask.
      • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -6/+6HonestAbe: no, NOT just because I was compiling code with it. Because I tweaked the build very specifically to drive the hardware harder than it was meant to be driven. I daresay you have no ***** clue what I'm talking about. This isn't a "./configure && make && make install" thing.

        Tell me, when was the last time you built something on a 2.4 ghz dual core processor that took over 50 hours to complete?
      • dysonlu, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3You just bury yourself deeper into the ignorance hole every time you try to "explain" the failure of your Mac. LOL.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 08/08/2008, -5/+3Based on his comments in this thread, I officially declare "salomejones" a complete and utter douche to the smug degree. Please come forward and collect my foot up your ass.
      • utnow, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5@dysonlu: no... you pompous pricks are just out to find something wrong with his statements and he's feeding your douchbaggery. It's very simple. He was trying to do something on his computer that the computer wasn't built to do. He failed and fried his machine. Apple fixed the situation despite absolutely no requirement to do so. It's called good customer relations. It's something mac users like about Apple and one of the reasons that they will continue to use their products in the foreseeable future, though I'm sure you will continue to believe that mac users are nothing but sheep that will follow whatever stevo says with blind devotion, having absolutely no reason other than idiocy.

        Fact: Digg users have no perspective other than their own.
      • dysonlu, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2@utnow: Looks like you're losing your cool a bit there. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

        Fact: the Macbook failed to the point of no-return due to overheating. That shouldn't happen if it was well-designed, no matter how he "tweaks" his software.
      • HonestAbe, on 08/09/2008, -1/+2A computer should not overheat to the point of failure, no matter what uber-1337 code you throw at it while dressing up in a Matrix trench coat and setting your terminal to green on black. The only reason people go on the defensive about stuff like this is because they know they overpaid and that Macs aren't really worth it, but their pride gets in the way and they have to pretend like everything works perfectly to justify their purchase.
    • joel8x, on 08/08/2008, -11/+5You really are stretching your point with the $19.00 remote.
      • utnow, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3You're really stretching your ***** with Michael Dell's 19" *****.
    • arjie, on 08/08/2008, -14/+16salomejones:
      Let's start with:
      # Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz T8300
      # 4Gb RAM (2×2GB)
      # 250 GB 5400rpm
      # No extra software
      # No additional warranty. Default 1 year parts and labour.
      # Intel GMA X3100 integrated graphics
      # Intel AGN Wireless.
      # Firewire

      Apple Macbook $1,799.00
      Dell XPS M1330 $1,679.00 and you get the following also:
      LED Backlit display, 320GB Hard Drive, 128MB GeForce 8400M GS, 3 Year In-home service, 3 Year Accidental Damage and Lojack theft protection, 20GB Online backup for 1 Year.

      Those figures are from April 24, 2008. I've posted a screenshot on digg before. I think the Dell can also get a 7200rpm drive (lower capacity) and be cheaper. Because the point of a Mac is that it 'just works', we aren't considering unscrewing a lower-priced version of the same model and buying commodity parts for it. The Dell XPS M1330 'just works' also. If you think that OS X and the backlit keyboard is worth the lower specs for higher price, then say so. But don't misinform people by claiming that the Macbook matches up. Nowhere near.

      In addition, the XPS M1330 is half a pound lighter. Well, there you go.
      • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -18/+11You're an idiot, and you've never owned a mac. There's a lot more to it than that. You missed the whole thing about applecare I noticed. Very handy. I know what Dell's hardware support is like, and I'd rather stick shrimp forks in my eyeballs than attempt to get a repair done by them.

        Also, don't forget the firewire---which is like USB except that all the devices you plug in actually consistently work.

        And the fact that Vista 32 (which is what comes with that Dell) won't recognize 4 gigs of ram any more than its motherboard will.

        I could go on, but the fact is you're really just whining because you want a macbook.
      • Aitese, on 08/08/2008, -8/+6But surely the remote control is worth $120?!
      • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -11/+5Oh and while im at it...I'd rather swallow a mouthful of slug ejaculate than run Vista at this point:

        http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/08/08/vista39s- ...

        Game over, windows vista.

        So yeah, I do think macs compare pretty well against Dells, thanks.
      • arjie, on 08/08/2008, -2/+10Aitese: The XPS M1330 comes with a remote control too, I forgot to mention that. :D Funny though.

        salome: I have had experience with Dell, I called them from Madras - gave them my Bombay address. The day after my flight landed in Bombay (Sunday) they were there at my new address, 5 minutes ahead of the time scheduled, and they gave me two calls - one the day before and one 30 mins before coming. The tech was polite, methodical (I watched him take apart the case to upgrade RAM) and friendly. I gave him a 10 on the email feedback. You have no idea what you're talking about. The only way Apple could have been better is if they upgraded my stuff for free (which I'm told Dell sometimes does if your motherboard fries under warranty). I'm not sure if I included AppleCare in the calculation, because I don't seem to have that listed in the table, but fine, count it included. That still doesn't bring the Macbook anywhere close to what I want.

        The XPS has IEEE1394 (that's Firewire).


        You can get a Vista DVD 64-bit from Dell upon request. I originally had 3GB RAM, so I didn't bother. The Macbook has no 3GB option. The motherboard does recognise 4GB of RAM, salome.

        Actually salome, I am one of those people who carefully evaluates how much hardware I get for what cost. I install a Debian-based distro on my laptops usually, you see, for that is what I prefer. If the Macbook had been better value for money hardware-wise, I would've bought it. It wasn't. I took the time to look up what I was getting and then took the best deal. Really now.

        I don't have a religious affiliation to my computer like you seem to. Why I am making these posts is if I hadn't taken the trouble to research costs and gone by the comments of people like you, I would have moved from my HP NX 7300 to a Macbook with lower specs than the Dell machine I have. I just want other people to know that what you claim (that prices are comparable) is incorrect. Again, if you think OS X is worth it, you're welcome to mention that, but don't mislead people.
      • arjie, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3« I'd rather swallow a mouthful of slug ejaculate than run Vista at this point:

        http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/08/08/vista39s- ...

        Game over, windows vista. »

        Very cute, 'slug ejaculate'. Adorable. I'll redirect you to my original post:
        «...If you think that OS X and the backlit keyboard is worth the lower specs for higher price, then say so...»
      • Aitese, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5A lot of petty Mac lovers in today. I'd love to own a Mac but the reality is I can't afford it...or, I could if I saved for it or bought it on credit but I wouldn't be able to justify the purchase for what I'd do with it, which is general computing rubbish with no real serious end in sight. A £200 netbook running ANYTHING (XP or Linux) would do for me.
      • philhatesyou, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6That's a far cry from the "WELL THEY COST TWICE AS MUCH" ***** that this article spits out.
      • arjie, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2philhatesyou: That is correct. The article's measurements aren't of much use, and seem to imply that you get a comparable Macbook as for another laptop. Of note is the fact that while their numbers for the desktops are okay, they don't take into account the fact that Macs jam everything into one piece, which as we all know will cause a huge difference in cost.

        They should compare Mac Pros to comparable commodity PCs, I understand those come in towers so it will be fairer.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2salomejones: I wish I could go back in time to when I first met your mother. At that point, I would make sure I had EXACT change, because if you were my kid, I would make you take a crap and eat it, so from that point on, you definitely realized that your ***** does stink. I'm not going to say that Macs suck, just your arguments for them.
    • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -10/+18WOW, the article compared a 4GB machine to the lowest price mac!!! try getting a mac with 4GB.....but first get a second mortgage you mindless sheep!
      • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -19/+8See? I WANT A MAC BUT I CANT AFFORD ONE THEREFORE ALL MACS SUCK AND MAC USERS ARE TOOLS WAAAAHHHHH

        Please direct any more useless whining to digging down this comment, thanks.
      • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -5/+10salomejones:
        thats all you got? I have 2 vista towers and a laptop....both of my towers have dual displays with SLI video cards (a video card is a fancy device used for graphics such as games [games are for entertainment, which you will never know anything about]). So, the issue isnt about not being able to afford a mac....the issues is that I like spendig my money wisely, and be free to do absolutely anything I want on my machines as opposed to being limited to what mac lets me do. Any of my machines will destroy anything you think makes your whack so special.

        pwned
      • santaliqueur, on 08/08/2008, -3/+12I love how the anti-Apple guys are more fanatical than the "fanboys" they try to mock.

        I love Macs, but anyone who buys memory from Apple is an idiot, or ignorant. Memory is as cheap for Macs as it is for any PC. I'm sure you already knew that. Your post certainly wasn't meant to instigate intelligent conversation.
      • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -3/+5santaliqueur:
        See, what salemejones was trying to imply was that I had some sort of mac envy because I "couldn't" afford one, in reply to my clearing up that the article discussed a 4gb machine compared to any mac. So the fact that your pointing out the cost of mac ram while I'm referring to what comes included in the pc mentioned in the article might lead one to think that your the one that ended the intelligent conversation before it started.

        pwned
      • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3@FonzsXe:

        My desktop computer is a 3.2ghz 8 core, 16gb RAM monster, doing SLI.

        And its a mac.

        But please, do go on.
      • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -4/+2@salomejones:

        i can run any game or software i want and not have to pay for anything...

        good luck with the second mortgage

        see if you can reply before your internet gets cut off for non payment

        but please, do go on.

      • arjie, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1santaliqueur: Not arguing with your point or anything, but some of us are just looking for a machine we can buy and plug in to use. I know that's what I want in a laptop, I don't want to have to screw around. That's reserved for the desktop. If I want something changed on the laptop, I want someone qualified to take it apart to come and do it for me. When I'm paying $1.4k I want this to be done, I don't want to have to do it. I think that's completely reasonable.
      • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -4/+2@FonzsXe: lets just go through a few points here:

        1. I am actually quite hip enough to know what sXe means, and therefore must assume that you're under 21 (because straightedge after 21 is called "uptight"), and therefore cannot possibly have the experience that I do in the field. So there's the first reason you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

        2. People who are straightedge are usually very cranky with people who obviously do a little reefer now and again, which is obviously the sort of person I am. So there's the second reason.

        3. I do not have a mortgage. I rent. Yes yes, I know, I'm throwing my money away---but I'm one of the people who didn't fall under the mortgage crisis, because I am smart enough to know a hollow market when I see one. So there's the third.

        4. I can run any game I want to, since x86 hardware runs Vista, and I dual boot the desktop occasionally to enjoy a FPS or two. I also run VMware Fusion on it, so that I can run windows programs inside the OS X gui. That's pretty nice. Fourth reason.

        At this point I WANT you to pwn me, because this is getting pretty boring. So please, try a little harder.
      • FonzsXe, on 08/09/2008, -1/+1Salomejomes

        I am 30. I don't judge anyone who smokes or drinks, thats their own issue not mine. I don't preach it to anyone either because it is a personal choice....for me. I chose it for clarity of heart and mind.....leading me to the sensible choice of a pc.

        I've been in the tech industry for 9 years in the tech industry (there's your experience)....and the one thing that has remained a constant...is that whac losers are usually the uptight ones.

        I just bought a 4bdrm 3btrm, 2,200 sq ft for $225,000...when 2 yrs ago, it listed at 600,000.....um so yeah, "hollow" sounds like an excuse.

        So instead of faking windows with your dual boot and vmware fusion...you could have used that extra money your burned for no reason to take advantage of the rock bottom housing market and have something much more valuable than your whac and your reefer (who calls it reefer?! you dated yourself hardcore....fail)
    • duckley, on 08/08/2008, -10/+3How about comparing machines with equal hardware specs for a change !!!

      Sure, the Mac would be more expensive, but not that much more.

      And you'd get a FAR better environment to work with. I know: I use a Mac 10 hours per day, and a PC 4-5 hours per day. (For the last 18 years).
    • zigziggityzoo, on 08/08/2008, -2/+6Compare an iMac to a Dell XPS One. You know, the one that has the whole computer built-in to the LCD? That would be a fair comparison (at least, a lot closer to parity).
    • elveis, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8I'm sick of these Mac vs PC "articles". Who cares. Buy what you like and quit arguing the same points over and over and over...
    • Tomchei, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1That table is so very wrong.

      It says June of 08, Mac Desktop at $1543 yet store.apple.com shows $599 for a Mac Desktop
      If you want to include a 20" monitor and such, then it's $1199 which I'm sure that the Windows Desktop at $550 doesn't include.

      • Balanced, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3I think the data used is based off what people actually spent for said system. So, essentially, $1543 is an average price spent on a Mac desktop... Thus factoring in the Mini ad Mac Pro sales.
      • Tomchei, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2You can't get a Mac Mini loaded for $1543. You'd still have money left over.
        Likewise, the comparable Windows version is bare bones at that.

        And Mac Pro != Desktop comparable to Windows for $700. That is at least $2000 for Windows with like hardware.
    • Urkel, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1The "Mac isn't that expensive" defense seems to always be the same thing. Pointing out at how many extras you get (Remote, Support, Design) and an outdated stereotype of Apple's quality.

      In terms of those beefy extras, I use my frontrow remote too but 99% of Mac users don't even know where there's is. And as much as people brag or put down support quality, a surprisingly large majority of all computers have never even called for support.

      And as for the "quality" argument. Intel brought us huge benefits but what we've lost is the bulletproof hardware we used to get. To think that our current Macbooks will last longer than 18-36 months is silly. These machines are just as disposable as the $600 Dell's and in 3 years then no matter what brand you choose you WILL be looking to upgrade. So there's a lot to be said about doing a $600 annual system replacement over praying that your $1500 2006 Macbook lasts another year.

      Personally, I'll keep paying Apple's premiums. But I refuse to pretend that we're getting anything close to a bargain.
  • AuroraAlpha, on 08/07/2008, -37/+63The bottom line is that people like Macs because they come with a level of engineering and customer service required for a $1,500 machine. This is why I never understood why comparison machines were always against the cheapest machines possible. Windows works great when you have $1,500 hardware, it does not work well on $500 hardware that people like to purchase. If Microsoft were smart it would set a minimum price of $1,000 on all systems and most of its problems would go away. If want to compared a PC to a Mac find a decent one, like a mid-level Thinkpad, not a bargain bin dell.
    • B1663r, on 08/07/2008, -27/+43I was gonna do an involved comparison but then I noticed the black MacBook costs $100 more than the white MacBook (even though everything else is exactly the same), and realized that single fact blows your whole 'engineered' hardware argument out of the water.

      • mbelleghem, on 08/08/2008, -7/+20160gb < 250gb
      • B1663r, on 08/08/2008, -5/+21Go to Apple store, then upgrade the white MacBook hard drive to 250, now look at the price difference. What do you see?
      • bknoll22, on 08/08/2008, -11/+13Wow you obviously researched that very well

        /sarcasm
      • cardinalb, on 08/08/2008, -7/+4Apparently the reason the black mac book is more is that when they released the black ipod it sold like hot cakes. Now simple economics would suggest that this is a good idea, release a black product, people love them and some will pay a premium for them.

        I remember hearing this in a talk somewhere, with the black mac book being the exact example used.
      • B1663r, on 08/08/2008, -11/+6bknoll22,

        With your help I think we are getting to the bottom of this!

        Apple fans are slow and don't do research;)

        /not sarcasm
      • flashback99, on 08/08/2008, -13/+4how the hell does it? If black macbooks are made in lower volume, then they will be priced higher. Or if apple chooses to price them $100 higher then what business is it of ours? if you cant afford it, why blame apple? blame your ***** bank account.

        I can't afford a lamborghini, but you dont see me asking lamborghini to lower their prices based upon their engineering principles!?!!
    • TheCash, on 08/08/2008, -6/+17Yeah... had I not had to fight Apple tech support tooth and nail over my Macbooks discoloration after 1 month, overheating, warped/cracked case, annoying high pitched whine + screen flicker, I might completely agree with your argument.
      • maexus, on 08/08/2008, -6/+2I had the discoloration, my hard drive crashed and had some screen flicker but they gave me no static and I received a practically new Macbook.
      • martin1981, on 08/08/2008, -3/+6I had a problem with my iMac and they fixed it immediately and even threw in a refund of approx $200 for my troubles. (I should note that this was within the first week of ownership).
      • kingcam, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1If I save $700 on a PC it be worth it to fight tooth and nail with the customer service people... plus I never got this whole 'customer service argument to begin with'. If I believed the fanboys no Mac has ever broken because they are 'engineered' better than PCs...
    • galvo, on 08/08/2008, -24/+14Shouldn't you be sucking Steve Jobs' ***** off somewhere?
      • bknoll22, on 08/08/2008, -3/+8What an insightful and important comment that you brought to the board. /sarcasm

        Seriously why do people that know absolutely nothing of what everyone else is talking about decide to post comments like this when a person writes a positive apple comment?

        Kindly leave.
      • flashback99, on 08/08/2008, -4/+2shouldnt you go back to fixing that ***** recurring registry error?
      • santaliqueur, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Isn't it funny how most people who trash Apple usually talk about guys beating off to Steve Jobs and Macbooks? Whats with all the jackoff talk? You need an outlet for something?
    • Slizzo, on 08/08/2008, -11/+9Engineering what? All Apple has that is exclusive nowadays is a fancy shell on PC hardware, and an OS that most of the rest of the world could care less about...
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1It's true. iPhone 2.0 was a *****, as noted by the turtlenecked one himself. Engineering?
    • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -6/+4AuroraAlpha, its sad how delusion you truly are. If your supposedly some sort of advance user, as many mac user fancy themselves to be, you wouldn't require any customer service to begin with. The most basic computer knowledge keeps any XP/Vista machine running smooth with the complete and utter freedom your afforded by the operating system....plus, you don't get nauseous feeling in the pit of your stomach when you realize you just got ass raped by the price of the mac.
      • h3lx, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3semi-advanced user, never needed mac support and have had 1 semi-serious issue in about 3-5 years. The old G4 took a lightning strike and I can't count that as a technical failure.

        Given the amount of money vested in software, my own technical level from the years and years of gaining this familiarity with the products on top what windows did when 2000 became ME, I don't think I'll ever own another WinPC. The ease of use and reliability are incomparable.
    • darkane, on 08/08/2008, -5/+12Really? I have no problems running any version of Windows on a $500 system. Seeing as how you can build a nice system for $250, $500 is far from a low-end machine.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1haha ***** right! I have a vista machine hooked up to my HDTV. 1080p playback for well under $500... WELL under.
    • dromeditor, on 08/08/2008, -2/+11@AuroraAlpha: except you missed the point in the article that BETTER hardware in the PCs was cheaper than the INFERIOR hardware in the Macs.
      • davepascoe, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3yeah 19" better than 20" monitor, everyone knows bigger is cheaper - economy of scale and all...

        the specs are all over the place, some better, some worse
      • kingcam, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I'll take my quad core processor, 3x Ram and 2x HDD space over 1'' of monitor, thank you very much.
    • Coffeedemon, on 08/08/2008, -0/+9Windows Vista (Home Premium) works pretty damn well for me on a $349 dollar Acer with a GeForce 8600 and using a mix of old and new devices... I've had one lockup in a year.

      ...I mean, if we're just throwing around anecdotal BS here today.
    • eldridgea, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2But the problem is Apple doesn't make mid-level machines (unless you want to count the Mac Mini). It only makes high-ends. So take the median from that and from Dell and you're way off.
      So if you want a low-end good-cost machine, that means buy from Dell, it will be good, just don't think it will be as good as an Apple.
      (That said, you can definitely get a Dell that is as good as an Apple).
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2That argument is getting old. If Apple wants to be a boutique, than fine. That's probably why most people don't take their computers seriously.
    • dillywe, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I'm currently running Vista on a $700 dollar laptop bought a little over 18 months that originally had XP, but I got a free upgrade a couple of months later.

      Now granted, I do not clutter my machine with startup programs, etc., but Vista runs great on a $700 dollar system bought 18 months ago.

    • WELLSHIT, on 08/08/2008, -4/+0I think people fail to realize that Mac, IS a high end Laptop, and B1663r....WELL....I partially agree with you, BUT in most cases the black Mac has more processing power then the white.O.....And TheCash...idk wth you did too your mac, BUT I have never heard of someone having a mac and having so many problems. TWO times I have had my Mac slip off my bunk bed in my dorm room and it is still in perfect condition.
  • mbelleghem, on 08/07/2008, -15/+43No need to repeat writing it, but maybe repeat reading it. Specifically, the part where it says average selling prices. That's average selling prices for the marque, not average selling prices for identically configured machines. Just because the average selling price of a new BMW is higher than the average selling price of a new Ford, that doesn't mean there's automatically less value for money in BMWs.
    • B1663r, on 08/07/2008, -17/+6And yet given the choice, I would rather have any Ford GT over any BMW grandpas car.
      • Chewie67, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8And that Ford GT would cost five times what the BMW would cost.

        So in essence you are saying "For the laptop you actually want, the Mac is cheaper"
      • B1663r, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1No. I am saying computers are not cars, and that the computers as cars analogy is ridiculous.

        For the computers as cars analogy to work, they would all have to be made out of the same parts. When was the last time you saw a chevy engine in a ford? I bet it was some gear heads attempt to be ironic.
    • AxeSwinger, on 08/08/2008, -5/+23But are you comparing a BMW vs. Ford when comparing Mac vs. PC?

      I've never owned a Mac but plan on buying a new laptop, so this topic is of interest to me. I get the whole Mac elegance thing. But, are there any significant differences between the two when you compare; computing power, frame material, software availability, warranties?

      My current laptop is a Dell, I paid for the "oh *****" warranty and it's been replaced three times because of my abuse or negligence. If materially there is no difference between the two systems I'm going to get another Dell. While I really like the styling of Macs I just can't see spending extra money.

      I understand the whole virus argument as well; but I've never gotten a virus because I'm not an idiot and use common sense, which seems to be better then the best anti-virus software on the market.

      If Macs can command a more then double premium is it because of the operating system, and is it truly worth it? Not trying to get fan boys up in arms either way. I'm just looking for that random Internet opinion.

      • Bukowsky, on 08/08/2008, -5/+6I'm in the market for a new laptop as well... and I'm wondering the exact same thing as you. I'd really like a mac, cuz they work better for my design work.... but I can't justify the significantly higher price, when I could spend that same amount of money on a better/powerful dell.

      • mbelleghem, on 08/08/2008, -17/+8You're missing the point.

        A significant percentage of Mac users are using their Macs for high end audio, video or publishing work, where cost of hardware is negligible relative to the amount billed by the professional through it. A higher percentage of Mac users are likely to buy fully kitted out, top-of-the-line spec'd machines, rather than PC users, of which 99.9% are content with a rather low-spec'd (think your average Dell, Best Buy or Walmart computer system purchase)

        Example: Out of a hundred Mac buyers, lets say twenty are graphic designers or audio / video producers, who buy a $5k system, while the other eighty buy a $1k system. Out of a hundred PC buyers, you're more likely to see three to five commercial graphic designers / video producers, buying a $5k system, while the other ninety-five buy a $1k system. See how the average sell would start to skew? Not saying it accounts for the entire gap, just saying its not apples to apples (heh) enough to bother with the comparison.

        The issue of component quality and so on is a separate discussion that Google can help you with. All I'm trying to say is that average sell price as in TFA does not mean you're paying twice as much for the same or comparable computers.
      • Azerael, on 08/08/2008, -5/+13If you want a laptop, get a Mac; they're the best laptops you'll find. If you want a tower, build your own PC; it will kick the crap out of any prefab computer for a significantly better price.
      • drjones78, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5The best thing about a mac is the resale value. You can usually sell them a year or two later and recover the at least a half to two thirds the original retail price and get a new one.
      • B1663r, on 08/08/2008, -5/+3and if you want a car, get a Ford GT, they kick the crap out of any BMW;)
      • dondara, on 08/08/2008, -10/+3"I've never owned a Mac"

        And yet you feel qualified to comment about them. Interesting. Really, if you don't want to pay for one, don't get one. Get something cheaper. But remember, cost and value are two different things.
      • Chewie67, on 08/08/2008, -7/+10I'm 40, and I've used a PC since I was about 15. I write software, build computers, and work in the IT industry. I know computers.

        I switched to a Mac in January, and I'm glad I did.

        Why did I switch? Despite having a fully patched copy of XP, running Firefox instead of IE, having the latest copy of Trend Micro AV and WebRoot Anti-Spyware, and never opening attachments in email, I got CRUSHED by a Trojan simply by surfing to a web page with a "news article" on it. I spent a week working with the various Spyware and AV companies trying to get the machine back to working order. Even then, they couldn't' guarantee that the machine was safe unless I formatted the hard drive and started over.

        That's just not acceptable for business. I can't lose a week of productivity due to that kind of crap.

        The Mac has it's pro's and con's, just like Windows, but at least I don't have to load it with bloatware that slows down the machine, and still doesn't protect me against malware. For now, at least, I can work without worrying about all the junk.
      • bassoondux, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3You've gotta include gaming in there though. There are probably more people buying high-end PCs for gaming rather than any professional tasks. And that just isn't a consideration when buying a Mac.
      • darkane, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4@mbelleghem
        You can't just pull numbers and statistics out of your ass and expect people to believe anything you say. If you were capable of rational thought, you'd realize that a significant percentage of home Windows (notice how I didn't say PC, because Macs are PCs, too) users are gamers and buy very high-end systems. You can't include business computers into the equation, because that's not Apple's market. So the vast majority of the cheap Windows machines you're talking about aren't applicable here.
      • CeltiCowboy, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3Seriously, if you are in the market, carefully reread the discussions here - a similarly configured PC is usually only $100 or less lower than a Mac. It is more secure, and it runs OSX, which is a huge plus over Vista or even XP Pro. Not to mention you can install XP Pro and dual boot, install it under BootCamp and run it virtually with little loss of power at the same time as OSX, and drag and drop between tehm - can't do that with a bargain Dell!!

        I agree with the poster who says if you want something other than a laptop, build your own. My homemade machine cost as much as a bargain Dell, but has much better hardware.
      • B1663r, on 08/08/2008, -3/+4Chewie67,

        When people install trojans on their computers, I have very little sympathy for them. When a IT pro installs a trojan on their computer, I have even less sympathy. Generally I expect more from IT pros to be fooled by a simple trojan.

        That brings me to the next issue... Wow, you weren't keeping backups were you? What kind of IT pro are you anyhow? It would have been an easy matter to fix your computer but you didn't take very basic prophylactic steps.

        Your post kinda makes me wish IT had more rigorous accreditation, like lawyers, doctors or car mechanics. With the kind of mistakes you make, repeatedly (back to the car analogy, you just advised a person to buy a new car because they had a flat tire...) would be stripped of their credentials.

        Finally, now that OSX is the top target of trojan writers, you made the worst possible decision. You have already indicated that you are very susceptible to trojan hacking techniques, and that you don't take the basic precautions necessary to recover from infection. At the end of the day, you have deluded your self that you are safe from trojans.

        Oh by the way, you didn't get the trojan when you just surfed a web page, you got a trojan when you installed it.

        But please, stay over there on the OSX side of things, I think if we can do the social hack and get rid of all the people who deliberately destroy their own computers windows will be a less appealing target;)

        I have been running Vista for a year and a half now without any active virus or spyware protection at all (and XP two years before that) and I haven't had a virus. I have seen one Vista computer infected with trojan based malware, but I simply re-enabled UAC (seems some internet douch bag told them to turn it off...) and that was the end of it;)
      • cypherz, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3@Chewie67
        I switched several years ago to Apple for much the same reasons. I just didn't have time to do constant maintenance and configuration. I've used Windows since 1.something when it was just a dos launcher. I'm not a Windows hater and still use it at work every day (virtualized by Parallels or via Citrix). It was a time/money decision to switch from a Linux-hosted VM setup that I had used on the road for three years to OS X. Even though I dearly love UNIX/Linux (and my primary programming output is on *NIX) I was spending *way* to much time on tweaking and configuration on Linux and Windows.
        @everyone else
        I need a UNIX-based host OS (OK, maybe not but it's easier) because I run server-side components on UNIX and client-side components on Windows and UNIX. OS X has been the best dev environment I've ever had and the combination of virtualized Windows (which seems to be very reliable compared to running Windows on the bare metal) and OS X as host give me the best of all possible worlds. I get the best-groomed *NIX distro there is (OS X) and a reliable way to manage and work in the worlds most popular client, Windows XP, all in one convenient package. What's not to like eh?
        As far as Apple being more expensive, well, yeah, some. But most of these comparison articles leave out how much maintenance overhead there is on non-virtualized Windows machines.
        Why is virtualized Windows better? Well that's easy: VMM's present Windows with *idealized* hardware, which when done right by the VMM vendor makes Windows more reliable than real hardware. Plus you can put Windows away when you're tired of looking at it. :)
        @Chewie67
        I also agree totally with the bloatware statement. I've moved all my convenience utilities, etc. to OS X versions of same where overall, such things work much better. Less patching of the kernel and hooking etc. required on OS X to achieve the same results. Most of my CM work is now done on OS X (even file trees on Windows). The tools are just better on OS X and I have a whole GNU toolchain on OS X. Cygwin is nice but utils like grep work are just different enough on Cygwin to require retooling of scripts that have always worked properly on *NIX.
        @Mac haters
        Each to his own. I'm sure there's lots on non-tech literate Mac users around, but please don't paint Mac users as folks who make purchases based on style and coolness alone. That's a glass house argument. There's plenty of non-computer literate Windows users for us to pick on. :)
        At any rate, most of the Mac users I know are professionals to whom the cost is not as much of a consideration as how much productivity they get with Macs, or they are UNIX beards who made the switch because OS X is the best-integrated, most well-groomed *NIX desktop OS they can get their hands on.
        I know both Windows and Linux fans are gonna digg me way down. Oh well.
        For what it's worth Chewie67, I'm 52 and have been writing *NIX and Windows software for 22 years.
        Now, all you damn kids get off my lawn! :)
      • digitalpencil, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1agreed.. towers for pcs, macs for laptops.. but it's all down to personal preference.
      • StandardsDT, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2@B1663r

        You do know that you don't have to "install" Trojans to get infected right? Trojans can download behind the scene's just from visiting a website with out you knowing and "install" with out you knowing. That's basic computer knowledge.
      • B1663r, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1StandardsDT,

        Two things. First you are an idiot.

        Second... A Trojan horse malware program requires the user put it on their computer manually... hence the whole trojan horse allusion. Apparently you are the single person on the world who somehow missed learning about the Trojan war in either school or pop culture.

      • StandardsDT, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2@B1663r

        Two Things.

        First your telling me that it's not entirely possible for a Trojan to download by it's self and install it's self?

        Haha that's funny cause I've seen many cases over the years repairing friends computers and asked them how they got it. I've been told that they were on a website, a file downloaded automatically with no interaction and infected the computer.

        I ran a virus scan and low and behold it was Trojan. Please explain that to me.

        Second how old are you? Five? You really need to act like a child and call some one an idiot? Did I call you a moron or anything of that sort? No I did not. I simply pointed out to you that Trojans can get on your computer with out you knowing because of Security holes in the Operating System. I mean how dare I disagree with you.

        Please act your age, be mature and don't call some one a name all because they disagreed with you or had a different opinion. I was trying to have a discussion but alas I see this is not possible or at least it looks like it.
      • B1663r, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1Hmm,

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

        Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"),

        Since you still don't know what a trojan is or how it works, that is you;)
      • mrBitch, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2@cypherz RE: "OS X has been the best dev environment I've ever had and the combination of virtualized Windows (which seems to be very reliable compared to running Windows on the bare metal) and OS X as host give me the best of all possible worlds.
        I get the best-groomed *NIX distro there is (OS X) and a reliable way to manage and work in the worlds most popular client, Windows XP, all in one convenient package. What's not to like eh?"

        Well said, that was what impressed me when I switched just over a year ago. OS X is the best groomed *NIX distro (at the moment, anyway).
    • DangerCollie, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3I had planned to replace our sales staff laptops with Macbook Pros but it's a really tough sell. A decently configured Macbook Pro is almost $3,000 ($2,799). Almost twice as much for a similarly configured Dell and I added in a bunch of goodies to the Dell. A high res HD 17 inch monitor, picked the biggest dual core processor they offered, added Vista Ultimate, same size HD and the Dell comes with more RAM...$1499. If you're down to doing micro-comparisons of features...no one cares if the specs are reasonably close. It's approximate parity in everything but the price.

      The difference in cost for a similar configuration is so outsized right now I can't justify the budget request. If it's a 1/3 more, I can do it. But Apple owes their users at least near parity on hardware.

      That's in the business setting. In your personal life if you think the price differential is worth it, go right ahead. But until Apple knocks a good $700-$800 off the cost of a 17 in Macbook Pro, our sales people are stuck with Vista. And that's all there is to it.
  • wonderchemist, on 08/07/2008, -18/+6And if you invested your money in Euros you would have enough to buy a Mac.
    • BrendanSheehan, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4You would have done better to have done that before the start of the war. A lot better.
  • BrendanSheehan, on 08/08/2008, -18/+69What idiot averages the prices of PC's and compares that to the average price of Macs? If you average the price of all cars, that small car would look like a bargain at its price, but that would depend on the model, and what you needed the car for, wouldn't it? That, and computers are even more complex than cars, with more reasons to choose wisely.
    • TheCash, on 08/08/2008, -5/+8The averages are done on similarly spec'd models. While you can't compare a Mercedes to a Honda, you can compare it to an Audi or Porsche.
    • EntropyFan, on 08/08/2008, -6/+3Computers are not more complex then cars. Have you attempted to work on a modern car?

      Apple uses the same stock parts from Intel, nVidia, ect. as every one else. There is nothing unique or special about them.
    • scrappyvintage, on 08/08/2008, -9/+4Macs = Proprietary
      PC = Not Proprietary

      You can ***** compare the two. One can be box bought AND/OR built cheaper and PERFORM BETTER for the buck, one cannot.

      Macs are the latest IBM (taken a step further with their own PROPRIETARY OS and ridiculously stupid pricing).


      "What idiot averages the prices of PC's and compares that to the average price of Macs?" NINETY PERCENT OF THE PURCHASING ***** PUBLIC.
      • CeltiCowboy, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5ONE MORE TIME: Comparable hardware + comparable pricing, and you don't get stuck with Windows VIsta - though you can install it as a secondary OS if you insist or have a true need.
    • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -6/+3hmmmm, maybe the idiot that chooses to use his or her money wisely. Besides, comparing a mac to a computer is unfair since the pc would be able to do ANYTHING while the mac will only do what it limits you to.
    • elf25, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3I see a lot of student computers because I have to get the MAC address and punch it into the wireless router. (yea, I know, it's not MY policy.) I find that the "fit & finish" of Apple products are generally higher quality. I'm sure out of the box, things are pretty equal but after some use, many "pc laptops" are just not right. Cracks, loose hinges, bad/dim/weird color on the displays, funky feel to some keys... the Apple products simply seem to me to take abuse better than cheap no name laptops. And I'd reiterate a previous comment that my wife has lots more trouble & routine maintenance issues with her "pc laptop" than I do with my Macbook Pro. I know everything I fire up Parallels, it seems I have to wait 5 - 15 minutes while something important updates itself.

    • DangerCollie, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2"What idiot averages the prices of PC's and compares that to the average price of Macs?"

      Well, our CEO and the CFO and, to an extent, people like me, the CIO. The people who make decisions whether to hire....people like you. To go back to your car analogy, we're not comparing a small car to a BMW. We're comparing a well-appointed Toyota Camry to a BMW 328 and asking whether there's $10,000 dollars of value in the cost difference. Comparing a $2,800 Macbook Pro with a very similar Dell with Vista Ultimate at $1,500 and asking if the value justifies the price difference is perfectly legitimate.

      And the answer right now is no, in case you're wondering.
  • phenolic, on 08/08/2008, -21/+58I'm not a Mac fanboy, but I have a MacBook Pro that's about 1.5 yrs old. My wife has a new HP machine which is just as expensive, and has better specs (more ram, faster processor, better video). Running XP (yeah, I do this as well as OSX) I out perform her somehow, especially when multi-tasking. The HP also overheats when gaming and shuts down after a few hours of play. I think Mac's control of hardware (and perhaps better R&D and QA) gives them an edge.
    • Aitese, on 08/08/2008, -3/+12If the HP is shutting down without you telling it to, your wife's got herself a broken laptop there. Why would you let her still use it?
      • cawpin, on 08/08/2008, -1/+8monkeymail - It makes perfect sense you dolt.
    • sysop073, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5Certainly Apple controlling the target hardware helps them, but a machine running Windows shouldn't be overheating just because you're using it heavily, something is wrong with it
    • mttyd, on 08/08/2008, -9/+4hmm... Overheating when gaming or not being able to game at all....
    • gardnmi, on 08/08/2008, -8/+2Your problem here seems to be that your playing games on a laptop.
      • reformation, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Easy solution = stop 'playing games' you are not a child.
    • joshualamgroup, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Many laptops overheat.. I know many of my friends with HP laptops (including me) have overheating problems..

      As for shutting down.. happened to me as well - I cleaned out my heatsink and applied thermal compound.. and it fixed it right away..
    • pwnsey, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Mine does that when i'm doing a lot of processes and its on a surface like a bed or something where there is low ventilation, never happens on a desk though.
  • clak, on 08/08/2008, -41/+82Could we please stop digging these stupid articles. Listen, if you're not willing to pay for a Mac, don't buy it. Knock yourself out with Vista, okay? Problem solved. Go join the underdogs with 89 percent of the market, with the operating system that's "not that bad." No one wants to hear you whine about how you can build a computer for a $1.50 plus tax and how much you hate imaginary Mac people in Starbucks. Go play some Counter-Strike, bitches and stop picking on my shiny, virus free box of love.
    • sethorama99, on 08/08/2008, -26/+9Virus free? That's not really a product of design, you know.
      • imnojezus, on 08/08/2008, -2/+11You're right, it has nothing to do with the inherent security of the architecture. Obviously the script kiddies just can't be assed to find all the wiiiiide open attack vectors on millions of boxes because no one would notice a Mac virus. It'd be completely ignored by the internets and the main stream media. How could we be so foolish?

        /sarcasm
      • sethorama99, on 08/08/2008, -9/+5Oh no, getting dugg down (again) for saying something true but unpopular.
      • sethorama99, on 08/08/2008, -6/+4You have a good point /sarcasm. Macs are not more secure, everyone knows that. They just represent such a tiny fraction of the market that from a strictly economic stand point, writing viruses for Mac doesn't make sense. Why spend your valuable, Mountain Dew fueled time writing something that will only affect 3% of computer users (if it were to infect 100% of Mac machines) when you could have a much higher incidence of infection dropping a script into a Windows machine? And if your Mac does catch a virus (it does occasionally happen) good luck finding AV software to fix it. I'm not hating on the Mac or slobbering over Windows, I'm just pointing out the actual situation but once again this issue is emotionally charged for some reason.
      • PhillyMJS, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5Sure it is. There's a lot of haters out there who would love to knock Apple and/or the smug Mac users down a peg or two by being the first to come up with a geniune Mac OS X virus. Plus they'd be pretty famous since, you know, it's been 7 years since OS X came out and nobody's managed to do it yet.

        All the antivirus software makers can do is sling FUD like "OS X is due to get hit!" and tell Mac users that they should run antivirus software out of courtesy for Windows users, so Macs don't unknowingly pass on Windows malware.
      • santaliqueur, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7Not a product of design? You mean a virus writer wouldn't become instantly famous for writing a Mac virus? Rethink your retarded logic.
      • santaliqueur, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4"And if your Mac does catch a virus (it does occasionally happen)"

        No it does not occasionally happen. Cite the source, or you are full of *****.
      • imnojezus, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5Seth, you're getting dugg down because your logic is flawed. For one, the Mac's market share is closing in on 10%. While that doesn't sound like much to you, that equates to somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million users. You're saying that someone who is striving for black-hat infamy wouldn't be interested in infecting the boxes and sitting back as millions of smug Mac owners cry in their lattes... that just doesn't make sense.

        Yes, Mac viruses do exist, but generally the user has to ACTIVELY install them. On my Windows box, all I have to do is shut down my firewall and go online with Explorer, and watch as the hilarity ensues. The fact that my Mac can go online with no firewall and not turn into a pile of melted crap in 45 seconds is absolutely a result of its design.
      • sethorama99, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2@santaliquer Here's my source: The Mac I went on a repair call for last week that had a virus.
    • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -22/+15These articles keep appearing and getting dug for only one reason, and its the same reason that windows users have always hated mac users:

      They're jealous.

      I know what you're going to say, but it really is true. This is simply a function of not being able to afford the really cool toy, so instead of just saving money, or training up for a better job so they can afford one, they whine and whine.

      If you want to see how this works on a bigger scale, all you need to do is think a little bit about McCain's most recent reasoning that Obama would make a terrible president:

      "He's just too popular to make a good president"
      • sysop073, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2"This is simply a function of not being able to afford the really cool toy"

        I like to think most Mac users are smarter than this, but maybe not
      • theloveman, on 08/08/2008, -4/+1OMG... like, totally.

        It's totally just like the other girls at, like, school. They are, like, just soooo totally jealous of me because I'm popular. And it's not because I'm, like, a slut or anything. Totally.

        ......

        Seriously... gimme a break dude.
      • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -4/+1
        Oh, and heres the other ploy---YER A DUMMY!

        Very impressive, sysop.
      • Coffeedemon, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2Spare me... if I want to blow 1500 or 2000 dollars on something I'll go buy lenses for my camera. At least with that you tend to get a noticable difference for your extra $$.
      • akilleen, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2I am guessing that most people that don't like Macs don't have a problem with the computer itself. The Mac is a fine machine, but many of it's users have this sense of superiority. I mean, come on, it's a goddamn computer! If Macs were priced similarly to other brands (and don't give me that nonsense about it being a deal because it comes with iLife, I don't need it!) I would certainly consider one. But it really isn't really all that much better than any other machine. Apple certainly has it's own share of hardware/software problems.
      • salomejones, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Dear honeys:

        If you really were apathetic about the existence of macs, and you werent at all jealous, none of you would have replied to this thread.

        Love,

        Salome Jones
      • sysop073, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Well, salomejones got me there. After years of trying to hide it, my pent up jealousy over mac users has finally gotten out. I always suspected it would be on Digg
    • KaiSe7eN, on 08/08/2008, -5/+23Dugg for "Box of Love"
    • cawpin, on 08/08/2008, -12/+4Vista isn't only "not that bad", it's just as good at OS X 10.5. I've NEVER had any problems with it and it runs full speed in a VM with 2GB of RAM. Just because some people have problems doesn't mean it's a bad product. If that was true the (iPhone/iMac/Macbook/MBP) is a piece of *****.
      • cypherz, on 08/08/2008, -1/+6I'm glad you're happy with Vista. It's really not bad. I had it installed for a while on my MBP. It's OK, not bad at all really. It didn't offer me anything I couldn't do on OS X though, so I went back to OS X. The lack of good Vista-compatible UNIX terminal emulation was the problem for me. The lack of a native GNU toolchain is a problem too. Also, the scheduler in Vista (though it seems better than XP) is still not up to the standards of most *NIX systems and that was a big problem for me (I'm writing server-side components where such things matter...)
        So, Vista isn't really that bad. It looks pretty nice too. Maybe in 5 or 6 years, it'll catch up with UNIX for folks that do serious work and I'll switch. In the mean time, it's a pretty decent gaming platform (as game publishers catch up with it).
      • mrBitch, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1RE: "Vista isn't really that bad. It looks pretty nice too. Maybe in 5 or 6 years, it'll catch up with UNIX for folks that do serious work and I'll switch."
        Only problem with that is that OS X is not standing still. Vista WILL catch up to the 2008 version of OS X, in 2014.
    • digitalpencil, on 08/08/2008, -0/+7yeh, god knows we're all congregated in starbucks emailing each other with new techniques to blow Steve Jobs..
      what always makes me wonder when any of these articles pops up and all this anti-apple slant appears is the fact that the vast majority of mac users all come from a Windows/PC background and that for whatever reason, switched to mac os. thing is, you never hear stories of any switching back.. of course the reasons for that never enter into these people's heads, they're far too preoccupied attempting to reduce an entire userbase to retarded chimps with big wallets.. ;)
      • Kelmon, on 08/08/2008, -3/+4Well, I've heard of some switching back since, in all honesty, that Mac isn't for everyone and once you've learnt how to do stuff on one platform, switching to another is a bit of a shock. However, I did switch to the Mac and there's little chance at this point that I'll be going back to Windows, simply because there is no compelling reason to do so. The Mac is advancing far more than Windows is with gaps in functionality and applications being filled while Windows has effectively stagnated. That said, Linux is coming along nicely these days and is probably moving faster than the Mac platform at present. One to watch, I think.
      • mrBitch, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1RE: "... once you've learnt how to do stuff on one platform, switching to another is a bit of a shock. However, I did switch to the Mac and there's little chance at this point that I'll be going back to Windows, simply because there is no compelling reason to do so.
        ... Windows has effectively stagnated. That said, Linux is coming along nicely these days and is probably moving faster than the Mac platform at present. One to watch, I think."

        I agree, Linux distros are updating rapidly, and I think Apple is watching this with interest as well.
    • WELLSHIT, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Pure....Witty Humour......NICE
    • hellsing47, on 08/08/2008, -5/+3Those people aren't imaginary.
    • kraetos, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5Dugg for telling us all how you REALLY feel.
    • dysonlu, on 08/08/2008, -7/+2What goes around comes around. That's what you get and that's what you deserve for being an arrorant fanboy. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

      By the way, my Windows PCs have been virus-free even before the resurgence of Apple. So looks like you've been paying a premium just for the shiny case.
  • supermanred, on 08/08/2008, -36/+32My macbook kicks the ***** out of comparably spec'd laptops from Dell, HP etc.

    Try OSX, it is the best UNIX os for the average person.
    • watcht, on 08/08/2008, -13/+12whatever keeps you asleep at nite...
      • flashback99, on 08/08/2008, -5/+3yeah, well we don't stay up trying to fix windows.
    • hmunkey, on 08/08/2008, -12/+9A $1500 laptop from IBM is a lot more powerful than a Macbook. At least the specs are a lot better.
      • JoeMerchant, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2Hey, and you can max that baby out with a Linux/ICE lightweight window manager which has better performance still, as long as you don't mind half of your software screwing up.
    • Kelmon, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2With all due respect, the average user doesn't care what the OS is. What's important to them are the applications that let them communicate with the world, get work done and entertain themselves. The Mac is great for this but that it is running UNIX isn't important to people unless you are a UNIX developer.
  • stevelucky, on 08/08/2008, -14/+23let's get real. comparing the hardware is kind of a lame comparison anyway. people buy mac's because they like OS X, not because they come with an intel dual core processor. while the hardware on mac's are great, there's a reason people are willing to pay a little more. having been a pc user since dos (and employed in the IT field), i made the leap to OS X about 2 years ago and have been happier ever since. for me, OS X is so much more reliable and flexible. i love it and that's why i bought my imac and will buy another when this one dies. even if that means spending a few more dollars.
    • mrBitch, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1This is the most interesting development - the majority of Mac users were using or are still using Windows (in most cases, only at work).

      Most Mac users CAN compare using Windows or Linux distros.

      Most Windows users only have the "friend of a friend" who says that Macs suck.
  • thecitysleepz, on 08/08/2008, -34/+35this argument will never end.... can't we all just get along?

    Sent from iPhone
    (while connected to my Mac Pro... while listening to my iPod... about to go watch movies I rented on Apple TV)
    • Snokage, on 08/08/2008, -6/+14im suprised you can afford anything after buying all that *****
    • mogebier, on 08/08/2008, -6/+7Wow, you are one of the few people that bought the Apple TV??
    • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -7/+11not with you!!
      sent from my windows mobile dash phone (about $200 less), while connected to my vista notebook with 3gb of ram that smoothly run call of duty 4 (about $700 less)...and about to go watch any movie I want for free off of bit torrent (you used apple tv? what an idiot!!)
      • larkeferd, on 08/08/2008, -5/+1Where did you buy Call of Duty 4 for $700 less than I paid?
      • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -8/+3i was referring to the laptop! Thats all you got? Did the mac not tell you what to say you little sheep, awwww.

      • joshualamgroup, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3hmm.. what about crysis?
      • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2josjualamgroup:
        just barely.....but who can?
      • reformation, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1You can also hear the fans in your laptop over the sound of any passing jets that happen to be flying near you!
    • punkcat, on 08/08/2008, -6/+3why i can build my own phone for a fraction of what you paid for the iphone.

      blah blah blah
      • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1build a phone?! um, yeah.....epic failure
    • Magnus150, on 08/08/2008, -3/+5sent from a blackberry connected to a thinkpad while listening to my zune, about to watch netflix on demand and/or one of the several blu-ray discs I have ready for me from them.

      The difference between us? Im a few thousand dollars richer in the end.

      and I gots teh bluray.
      • joshualamgroup, on 08/08/2008, -4/+2"and I gots teh bluray."

        You can afford Blu-Ray and not typing lessons?
  • wildsnake, on 08/08/2008, -19/+8Twice the price...lol
  • battletops, on 08/08/2008, -31/+16Average quality for Windows notebooks is about half the quality of Mac laptops. Shall I repeat that?
    • darkane, on 08/08/2008, -5/+10Sometimes comments are so stupid that it makes me ashamed to share the same planet with the individual. This is one of those occasions.
    • FonzsXe, on 08/08/2008, -4/+3Whats your basis for that? Oh, and if your mac does have a problem....you should get lubed up for the ass raping.
    • cheezwhip, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0I wasn't aware that Microsoft made notebooks...
  • mahsah, on 08/08/2008, -17/+6Honestly the only real thing OSX offers over Linux or Windows is Final Cut Pro.
    • clak, on 08/08/2008, -10/+10Well, it a little bit more than that. You're forgetting Shake, which is ten times better than After Effects, although you can get After Effects for Mac too. And then there's stuff like Logic Pro and Motion. In fact, here's a quick list of Mac programs you can't get for a PC.

      Final Cut Pro, Shake, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Color, DVD Studio Pro, Cinema Tools, Compressor, Logic Pro, Main Stage, Studio Instruments, Studio Effects, Aperture, GarageBand, Pages, Keynote, Numbers, NeoOffice, iPhoto, iChat, iWeb, iCal, iMovie, iDVD, iSync, EyeTV, Toast, HighDesign, Pixelmator, Acorn, Iris, WireTap Studio, QuickSilver, Preview, Photo Booth, Font Book, Apple Mail, TextEdit, Front Row, Automator, Expose, Spaces, Dashboard, Time Machine, PathFinder, Yojimbo, BBEdit, MailSmith, iShowU, Stomp, RapidWeaver, ChocoFlop, OmniGraffle, OmniFocus, OmniPlan, Freeway, Teleport, Pulpmotion, CandyBar, Coda, Unison, Transmit3, Twitterriffic, Cyberduck, ForkLift, Swift Publisher, Adium, XSlimmer, Yep, Colloquy, ShutterBug, Ulysses, Xcode.

      And even though Handbrake is not on this list, which is probably the most useful OS X app I have, since I'm such a movie junkie, the Windows version does not decrypt commercial DVDs. That app alone is enough to keep me from Windows.
      • darkane, on 08/08/2008, -4/+7I really hope somebody types up a list of applications and games that can't be run on OSX, as well as the Windows equivalents of all the applications you just listed.

        If you're going to make an argument for Macs, at least do it right. The reason to get a Mac is that it can run both OSX and Windows, not because OSX has iChat.
      • FonzsXe,