[macfantn]

i can get this at circuit city for $479

•Intel Pentium Dual Core T2080
•80GB hard drive
•Burns DVDs and CDs
•1GB of DDR2 memory
•Built-in 802.11gb wireless
•Windows Vista Home Premium

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Toshi...oductDetail.do

i definitely prefer macs have been using them since 92, but why is comparable mac 1099? I do prefer OS X and the apps bundled with the mac but I'm begining to wonder if is it worth the price difference.

[sek929]

Vista Home Premium?

Isn't that a contradiction?

[sek929]

To answer your question, no, they are not.

I bought my G4 for 2 grand, but that was almost 7 years ago and it still works great. I doubt you'd get the same results with a 500 dollar PC.

[Chuckit]

That's with a reasonably heavy discount, and I guarantee you any laptop at that price will make you want to blow your brains out. More expensive PC laptops are OK (albeit still PCs), but if you buy a cheap one, you better factor in the cost of the new one you'll have to buy in a year while the models that were only $400 more expensive are still chugging away.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Caveat emptor. You get what you pay for...

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by macfantn 

I do prefer OS X and the apps bundled with the mac but I'm begining to wonder if is it worth the price difference.

Why must people always compare unmatched products?

The lowest end Mac Notebook is:
* Faster by 15.3% in clock speed.
* Has 3 MB more L2 cache.
* Includes Bluetooth
* Include 802.11n

[osiris]

I noticed that this is a Toshiba - a brand I've had a lot of success with in the past with TVs, DVD, VHS...
The few Toshiba laptops I've used (in Japan) were of incredible build quality, but were also Japanese made. This one I'm not sure about.

So as Mrjinglesusa sez: Caveat emptor.

Maybe it's a deal, check it out IRL to see how it feels.
It does have more shared video memory (256 vs 64) but the processor is slower, and this one has 1/4 the L2 cache (1 mb vs 4mb), plus the BT.

as for the topic: well, they are IMO a little overpriced, especially at the entry level, but you get a nice system for the money. I would like to see a MacBook start at $800.

[Jawbone54]

Go ahead and knock yourself out with a big, ugly, virus-prone, trial software-bloated, resale value-deficient Toshiba Satellite.
We have to allow you to make silly decisions. it's the law.

[macintologist]

My roommate received on those Dell Inspiron 1000's for his graduation present in June 2005. He still uses it but it's a complete piece of ****. I badger him about getting a Mac at least once a week, and my Mac never ceases to impress him with what it can do at every corner. I'm pretty sure his next laptop will be a Macbook.

[larrinski]

Not a bad computer to nuke and pave to put Linux on...

But IMO, it is fugly...

[KeriVit]

Yes. Such is life.

[Mastrap]

I could get a Korean build car that cost a fraction of the car I am driving. But I'm not.

And this recent spate of 'oh hay, macs ore overpriced lol' posts is getting really old.

[mduell]

Apple doesn't compete in the $500 laptop market.

You need to move up to at least $1100 if you want to compare to Apple's laptops.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by macfantn 

i definitely prefer macs have been using them since 92, but why is comparable mac 1099? I do prefer OS X and the apps bundled with the mac but I'm begining to wonder if is it worth the price difference.

Yes, Macs are indeed pricey, but ... overpriced? I'd say the ACDs are overpriced but not the desktops/laptops/combos.

Whether or not it is worth it is something only you can decide for yourself based on your preferences. Do what feels best to you.

[besson3c]

Yes Macs are overpriced, you pay a premium to have a Mac. This is the market Apple caters towards, they simply don't go after the sub $500 PC market, this is undeniable.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Ganesha 

Why must people always compare unmatched products?

The lowest end Mac Notebook is:
* Faster by 15.3% in clock speed.
* Has 3 MB more L2 cache.
* Includes Bluetooth
* Include 802.11n

This is true, but this doesn't make up the price difference. Macs are boutique products that you pay a premium for, it's as simple as that.

[kelso]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes Macs are overpriced, you pay a premium to have a Mac. This is the market Apple caters towards, they simply don't go after the sub $500 PC market, this is undeniable.

I do believe that they attempt to with the Mac Mini. It packs a lot of power and is very well designed for the price.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kelso 

I do believe that they attempt to with the Mac Mini. It packs a lot of power and is very well designed for the price.

Well, you can get a PC with display for around that price. So, it's okay, but nothing terribly outstanding.

[OldManMac]

Buy the PC, change your handle to pcfantn, and you'll live happily ever after. Why come here just to convince yourself?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Caveat emptor. You get what you pay for...

Tell me about it. My MacBook was relatively cheap by Apple standards, and has had multiple problems.

(I also had multiple problems with my G3 iBook and my G5 iMac.)

That's what happens when pricing decreases. QA suffers.

[Stogieman]

My experience has been quite the opposite. I've had fewer problems with my Mac Mini and MacBook than I had with my iMac G3 and PowerBook G4. (To be fair I've only had my MacBook for about a month. )

[CharlesS]

It depends on what your criteria are. If what you need is a computer with some basic form of expansion, then Macs are extremely overpriced, since with a PC you can get that in a machine less expensive than a Mac mini or MacBook, but on the Mac side you'd have to buy a Mac Pro or MacBook Pro at 4-5 times the price of the PC.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

It depends on what your criteria are. If what you need is a computer with some basic form of expansion, then Macs are extremely overpriced, since with a PC you can get that in a machine less expensive than a Mac mini or MacBook, but on the Mac side you'd have to buy a Mac Pro or MacBook Pro at 4-5 times the price of the PC.

Eh, they're still not overpriced; you're just looking for computers in the wrong market. It's like saying that Toyotas are overpriced if you need a toaster. In fact, Toyotas are a pretty good deal, but they don't make toasters.

[MacosNerd]

You do pay a premium for mac which is different then saying they're over priced. While not the cheapest they are the best designed, built and run the best OS.

I mean you could make the same exact argument for cars, stereos or any other consumer product. There are some products that you pay just for the name, there are some that you pay a little more because they're better made and finally you can but cheap stuff at walmart like dells

The old adage does remain you get what you pay for and if you find a cheaper computer you can but that doesn't mean you're getting a better computer

[TheoCryst]

I had a Toshiba Satellite, from that particular price range to boot. It was the worst computer I have ever owned, and ended up kicking the bucket less than a year after purchase, due to multiple hardware failures. I didn't even bother trying to get it repaired; I just bought an iBook instead.

Also worth noting: the processor in this Toshiba is a "Pentium Dual Core", not a Core 2 Duo or even a Core Duo. Also, battery life is not mentioned anywhere on the page, which implies that it's really not something they want to advertise.

[Ghoser777]

I hope they're not overpriced - I just bought one

[wallinbl]

The prices for Macs suck. They really need to come down. I have an iMac that I bought used. There's no way I'd pay the new price. I can't get any friends or family to convert because of the price. Don't tell me about the mini - it's not so cheap when you put enough RAM and HD in it to make it useful.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Tell me about it. My MacBook was relatively cheap by Apple standards, and has had multiple problems.

(I also had multiple problems with my G3 iBook and my G5 iMac.)

That's what happens when pricing decreases. QA suffers.

I've had:

1) MacClassic II

2) Performa 475

3) Performa 6200

4) Original iBook G3

5) Pismo Powerbook

6) 17" "Lamp Shade" iMac G4

7) Original G4 iBook

8) 20" iMac G5

9) 17" Intel iMac*

10) 17" MacBook Pro*

*Current Macs

Maybe I am just lucky, but I have never had to send in any of these computers for repair and have never had any issues with any of them. I had all of my Macs for at least a year and many of them for 3+ years. Aside from the Pismo Powerbook and MacBook Pro, all the others would be considered Apple's "low end" consumer machines. So, in all of these cases, I definitely got what I paid for.

On the other hand, I had a 15" Gateway laptop I bought at Best Buy for $750. Completely crapped out (i.e., won't even turn on anymore) after 13 months (yes, just outside warranty period). My wife has had nothing but problems with her $999 HP desktop (power supply needed to be replaced, had to reinstall Windows at least 5 times, CD drive stopped working, etc.).

[sek929]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

The prices for Macs suck. They really need to come down. I have an iMac that I bought used. There's no way I'd pay the new price. I can't get any friends or family to convert because of the price. Don't tell me about the mini - it's not so cheap when you put enough RAM and HD in it to make it useful.

The prices for Porshces suck. They really need to come down. I bought a 1980 Porshce that was used. There's no way I'd pay the new price. I can't get my friends to buy Porches because of the price. Don't tell me about the Boxter, it's not so cheap once you put enough HP in it to make it useful.

Basically I'm playing the worlds tiniest violin for you.

As Eug said, if they cut the price then it will cease to be worth buying a Mac at all since the quality would suffer immensely.

If you don't like it, buy a cheap ass PC and join a Windows forum.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The prices for Porshces suck. They really need to come down. I bought a 1980 Porshce that was used. There's no way I'd pay the new price. I can't get my friends to buy Porches because of the price. Don't tell me about the Boxter, it's not so cheap once you put enough HP in it to make it useful.

Completely and entirely different. Porsche isn't competing with the Camry. Mac is competing with the PC.

[sek929]

Macs will never compete with the cheap PC market, they don't need to as the profits are razor thin and the quality/name of the Macintosh would suffer.

My 2 grand G4 has lasted for 7 years without a hiccup, it hasn't froze since I installed 10.0.4, and you think that if it cost $899 I'd still be using it? Insanity!

Macs are selling better than ever nowadays so Apple doesn't need to worry about cheapos like you.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Completely and entirely different. Porsche isn't competing with the Camry. Mac is competing with the PC.

As I've tried to explain previously in this thread, the Mac is not competing with the PC in every market the PC is in. The shitty $300 computer market, for example, is not someplace Apple wants to go.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Completely and entirely different. Porsche isn't competing with the Camry. Mac is competing with the PC.

Exactly and apple isn't competing with the bargain basement cheapo computers either.

[Big Mac]

Last year I bought a Dell because I needed Windows to run some single platform applications and I wanted a real GPU. I could have gone for a MBP, but it was out of the price range I was willing to pay. I was happy with my purchase for a while, but now I regret it. I should have gotten a Mactel. Windows is just so amazingly awful to this day. It's a joke. If someone told me I had to choose between Windows and a typewriter, I would choose the typewriter. How anyone can rely on Windows on a daily basis is beyond me. OS X is worth every extra dollar.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Completely and entirely different. Porsche isn't competing with the Camry. Mac is competing with the PC.

What ?

You can run OS X on PCs ?

-t

[imitchellg5]

I think this discussion comes up about twice a month. Boooooring.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As I've tried to explain previously in this thread, the Mac is not competing with the PC in every market the PC is in. The shitty $300 computer market, for example, is not someplace Apple wants to go.

I think this post needs to be a sticky.

People are greedy, they want a cheap computer that is rock solid and has great resale value.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by macfantn 

•Intel Pentium Dual Core T2080 <-- Not to spec with the C2D (to my assumption)
•80GB hard drive <-- Does it connect via SATA?
•Burns DVDs and CDs
•1GB of DDR2 memory
•Built-in 802.11gb wireless <-- But no N
•Windows Vista Home Premium <-- Thats self explanatory

You also have to factor in the fact that the OS is built for the hardware and visa versa.

[invisibleX]

I'm willing to pay extra because Apple products are pretty.

Now back to stroking my iPhone.

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by macfantn 

i can get this at circuit city for $479

•Intel Pentium Dual Core T2080
•80GB hard drive
•Burns DVDs and CDs
•1GB of DDR2 memory
•Built-in 802.11gb wireless
•Windows Vista Home Premium
.

The specs are alright, but I bet the over all feel/form of the computer is rather cheap and bulky. Personally, I'm wiling to pay more for a better quality product.

[Don Pickett]

This question is difficult to answer for two reasons, one practical and one based on business philosophy.

The practical reason is that Apple's product line doesn't look like other makers' lines. Instead of mixing and matching CPUs, memory and other specs, you get a complete product. Compare a Macbook Pro to a similarly equipped PC laptop and you will find the are comparable on price, and that the Macbook has features hard to find in the PC world, like Firewire 800. But, if you don't ned Firewire 800, or don't need a built-in webcam, then you're paying for stuff you don't need and, by definition, are wasting money. The same goes across the line. The 8-core Mac Pros are great deals when spec'd against similarly equipped Dells, but if what you need is a machine with big processing power and not much else--as in, you don't need two optical drives and four drive bays--then, once again, you're paying for stuff you don't need.

Why does Apple's line look like it does? Because Apple doesn't operate the same way as other computer makers. Dell, fr'instance, operates essentially as a fulfillment house. Meaning, they allow you to assemble your machine, match the pieces from their inventory, and ship it to you. The same model could be applied to microwaves, cel phones or refrigerators. This is not to diminish Dell's ability with this model; they do it very well. The plus side of doing things this way is that it makes the manufacturing process much simpler. All you're doing is bolting together pre-existing parts. Profit, in this business model, is made by keeping the cost of components as low as possible, which is accomplished through selling in high volume, which lets you buy components in bulk, reducing unit cost.

Apple has a different model. It sells vertically integrated solutions, meaning that instead of just assembling a product from pre-existing pieces, they design and integrate the various components to work with each other, and to work with other devices they sell. This means, among other things, considerably more overhead. Dell, and others, have no R&D costs for operating system or software development, and very little design cost. Apple has high costs for both, because of the expectation of it all working together. Additionally, designing things to work as a unit means limited mixing and matching. The reason the MacBook comes with a webcam is because it was designed from the ground up to include one, and the hardware and software expects it to be there. With the downside of higher upfront costs, this model also offers higher margins per unit. Apple's margins run higher than any other computer maker, because they can charge more, because they're delivering a more complete product than is Dell.

Which is all to say that comparing Apple to Dell is going to give you skewed results one way or the other, because Apple and Dell approach their products very differently.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by kelso 

I do believe that they attempt to with the Mac Mini. It packs a lot of power and is very well designed for the price.

There's a lot of things the Mac mini is, but packing a lot of power for the price isn't one of them. Other OEMs have machines in the Mac mini price range ($650) with 2.4Ghz quads/2GB RAM/80GB disk/128MB nVidia graphics/etc.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by mduell 

There's a lot of things the Mac mini is, but packing a lot of power for the price isn't one of them. Other OEMs have machines in the Mac mini price range ($650) with 2.4Ghz quads/2GB RAM/80GB disk/128MB nVidia graphics/etc.

Quad core processors for $650? Where?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

There's a lot of things the Mac mini is, but packing a lot of power for the price isn't one of them. Other OEMs have machines in the Mac mini price range ($650) with 2.4Ghz quads/2GB RAM/80GB disk/128MB nVidia graphics/etc.

I think you're exaggerating, but anyway, the small size does limit the power because it has to use laptop components — and inexpensive ones at that.

[mduell]

Dell Dimension 9200 Core 2 Quad Q6600, 80GB HD, 2GB DDR2, 128MB nVidia GeForce 8300 GS, DVD+/-RW , Vista Basic $649 (from slickdeals.net)

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Dell Dimension 9200 Core 2 Quad Q6600, 80GB HD, 2GB DDR2, 128MB nVidia GeForce 8300 GS, DVD+/-RW , Vista Basic $649 (from slickdeals.net)

I didn't even know they had quad-core Core 2s.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I didn't even know they had quad-core Core 2s.

It's just like the quad-core Xeons — two regular Core 2 Duos stuck together.

Oh, and in my defense, the price of the Core 2 Quad was just recently cut in half. Otherwise, I don't see how that computer could make a profit, as the Quad cost about $600 by itself.

[mduell]

Yea, they just dropped the 2.4Ghz Core 2 Quad from $500 to $250 a week ago.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Yea, they just dropped the 2.4Ghz Core 2 Quad from $500 to $250 a week ago.

Hmmm... That'd make for a nice iMac. However, I'd prefer support for 2 hard drives... and a 30" screen.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Hmmm... That'd make for a nice iMac. However, I'd prefer support for 2 hard drives... and a 30" screen.

It's a desktop chip, not a laptop chip (which the iMacs use), so the power/heat is too high (95W instead of 35W).