[f1000]

I have seen so many posters (mostly kids) recommend a more expensive PowerBook or PowerMac over a perfectly adequate iBook or iMac that I thought I'd start a thread on the subject.

Computers, unlike wine and women, do not improve with age. Instead, computers depreciate. According to the Federal Reserve, the average computer will lose half of its value every year; that's worse than a car!

The more expensive the computer, the more it will depreciate. A new $3,000 dollar PowerMac will lose $1,500 in value in one year. In contrast, a new $500 iMac mini only lose $250 in one year. What this means is that it�s basically more economical for the average user to buy a $500 computer and replace it every year than it is to buy one $3,000 model and hold on to it for six years. Take a look at the following scenario:


Money lost due to depreciation over six years

PowerMac: $1,500, $750, $375, $187.50, $93.75, $46.875 = $2,953.125
Mini: $250, $250, $250, $250, $250, $250 = $1,500


After six years, the $3,000 model is worth $46.875. In contrast, the annually refreshed iMac Mini is still worth $250, and it only cost $1,500 to maintain. Moreover, by year three, the annually refreshed Mac Mini will be faster than the PowerMac thanks to Moore�s Law. I've left out some other factors, such as inflation, interest, and the cost of selling/buying a new Mac Mini every year; however, I suspect that incorporating these factors into my rudimentary calculations won't significantly change the results.

Due to competitive pressures, computer manufacturers usually have to provide more bang for the buck on lower end models than on higher end ones. That�s why a $3,000 PowerMac isn't going to be 6x faster than a $500 Mac Mini.

In some cases, one can justify the purchase of a higher end computer because a cheaper model lacks a crucial capability (such as internal SCSI or DVI out). In other cases, one can justify such a purchase because the increased profit generated by the extra computational power will exceed the extra depreciation. This is rarely the case for the average consumer, though.

In summary, the average consumer should buy the minimum computer that accomplishes his or her daily needs.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by f1000:
PowerMac: $1,500, $750, $375, $187.50, $93.75, $46.875 = $2,953.125
Mini: $250, $250, $250, $250, $250, $250 = $1,500

Right here you shoot yourself in the foot, since a 2-year-old PowerBook isn't worth $375 (meaning, they still sell for way more than that). It's closer to $1000.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

what you are trying to say in terms of speed:

5 4 3 2 1 = 15

3 3 3 3 3 = 15



reality of a 3-year upgrade schedule in terms of speed:

5 4 3 5 4 = 21

3 3 3 3 3 = 15




if productivity is more important than money, then you should upgrade to a machine that can help you now.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Right here you shoot yourself in the foot, since a 2-year-old PowerBook isn't worth $375 (meaning, they still sell for way more than that). It's closer to $1000.

I can't argue with that. If someone can re-jig the numbers using Mac-centric data, I'd be much obliged.

EDIT: Apple introduced the 12" PowerBook (combo) in January 2003 for $1,799. Today, that same model sells for no more than $740 on eBay. That's an annual depreciation of 36%.

The bottom line is that an expensive computer will still depreciate more than a cheaper one.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
if productivity is more important than money, then you should upgrade to a machine that can help you now.

Yes, but can you put a dollar value on productivity? This has been a subject of some debate by economists for awhile. I'd say that the majority of switchers are not power users, and that they're mostly interested in web surfing, email, word processing, and iTunes. Even an iBook can play back DVD's just fine.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Right here you shoot yourself in the foot, since a 2-year-old PowerBook isn't worth $375 (meaning, they still sell for way more than that). It's closer to $1000.

Not to mention a 6-year old is still several hundred dollars. Pismos are getting to be pretty old beasts (almost 6 years now) and are still going on eBay for over $400.

However, I do agree with what you are saying. For the average person, I do think it is more economical to spend less on a newer, not-the-fastest-but-pretty-decent-for-e-mail Mac than to spend 2-3x as much on a pro-line Mac.

[nredman]

i have had my current mac (iBook G4 800mhz) for just over a year. this is the longest i have ever had a mac. before this one i would buy a new mac (imac, ibook, or emac) and use it for 6 months and then sell it for just a few hundred less then i got it for and pick up a new faster mac. but after i got this iBook i told my wife i wouldn't get a new mac until they came out with G5 iBooks...could be awhile for that

[f1000]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
what you are trying to say in terms of speed:

5 4 3 2 1 = 15

3 3 3 3 3 = 15

Actually, this isn't accurate. Let's assume that the PowerMac starts out as being 4 times faster than the Mac Mini, and that processor speed doubles every 12 months (to make the calcs simpler):

4 4 4 4 4 4 = 24

1 2 4 8 16 32 = 63

To add insult to injury, the top scenario will cost you almost $3,000, whereas the bottom scenerio will only cost you $1,500.

Of course, a computer's overall performance doesn't follow Moore's Law, so the difference in total speed from year to year isn't going to be 100%.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

in my diagram, 5 = top speed. i put down a "3" for "good enough". it does not equate to speed value.

1 2 3 4 5 6 years

5 4 3 5 4 3

3 3 3 3 3 3


over 6 years, and upgrading twice. you have 2 years of top speed and 2 years of near top speed. and 2 years of average speed.

over six years and six upgrades, you wind up with 6 years of average speed.

i understand that you are saying the mini mac will get boosted too but the software speed inflation makes up for that.


anyway, i grow tired of arguing over this. WHY BE SO CHEAP? a lot of people buy 4 dollar coffess or 2 dollars in soda alone everyday. why is it so bad to blow a little bit and buy a nice computer? it is a tax write-off after all!

[f1000]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
in my diagram, 5 = top speed. i put down a "3" for "good enough". it does not equate to speed value.

1 2 3 4 5 6 years

5 4 3 5 4 3

3 3 3 3 3 3


over 6 years, and upgrading twice. you have 2 years of top speed and 2 years of near top speed. and 2 years of average speed.

Yes, but at what cost? What are the two users getting for their dollars? By the way, refreshing the PowerMac after three years worsens the financial comparison. Behold:

$1,500, $750, $375, $1500, $750, $375 = $5,250
$250, $250, $250, $250, $250, $250 = $1,500

In terms of processor speed,

4 4 4 32 32 32 = 108
1 2 4 8 16 32 = 63

Is getting 71% more processing operations over 6 years worth paying 250% more money?

anyway, i grow tired of arguing over this. WHY BE SO CHEAP? a lot of people buy 4 dollar coffess or 2 dollars in soda alone everyday. why is it so bad to blow a little bit and buy a nice computer? it is a tax write-off after all!

I'm not telling people that they should solely base their purchases on economics. A lot of people buy cars based on looks, after all.

What I'm arguing against is the specific claim that it's economically prudent to pay more for a computer with some built-in resistance to obsolescence.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

moore's law doesn't apply to macs. especially for the mac mini.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
moore's law doesn't apply to macs. especially for the mac mini.

I've already pointed out that Moore's Law isn't applicable to overall system performance, but I hope you're not claiming that Moore's law doesn't apply to PowerPC processors.

Before you make any more such unqualified statements, please be prepared to back your posts up with empirical data. There's no way that you can know whether Moore's Law will apply to the Mac Mini's CPU since the Mini has only been out for one revision. Furthermore, Apple's consistently refreshed the CPU in all of its other Macs since the beginning of time, so I don't see how you can claim that Moore's Law doesn't apply to Macs (CPUs) in general.

[Brass]

Originally posted by f1000:
I've already pointed out that Moore's Law isn't applicable to overall system performance, but I hope you're not claiming that Moore's law doesn't apply to PowerPC processors.

Before you make any more such unqualified statements, please be prepared to back your posts up with empirical data. There's no way that you can know whether Moore's Law will apply to the Mac Mini's CPU since the Mini has only been out for one revision. Furthermore, Apple's consistently refreshed the CPU in all of its other Macs since the beginning of time, so I don't see how you can claim that Moore's Law doesn't apply to Macs (CPUs) in general.

Moore's Law no longer applies to ANY CPU in terms of maximum CPU speed for a particular processor line. Have you noticed that Intel processor speeds have not improved a lot over that last year? PPC processor speeds have not improved much either.

Processor speeds are certainly nowhere near doubling each year any more (as per Moore's Law).

Among others, Steve Jobs claims this is because we are reaching the limits of current processor technology. this is also why all processor manufacturers are now putting effort into multi-core CPU's rather than into speed improvements.

EDIT:

Actually, I must confess that everytying I've said about Moore's Law in this post is incorrect. Moore's Law is not actually about CPU speed at all, but about number of transistors on a CPU (although they may be related?). However, the general gist of what I was trying to say still holds true. The speed of processors in NOT increasing anywhere near as fast as it did in prior to about 2004.

[sugar_coated]

It is not about how much it costs after a year, it about how much more you can continue to do with it in the next 5 years!

[f1000]

Originally posted by Brass:
Moore's Law no longer applies to ANY CPU in terms of maximum CPU speed for a particular processor line. Have you noticed that Intel processor speeds have not improved a lot over that last year? PPC processor speeds have not improved much either.

Moore's Law was never an absolute physical law in the first place. The point is that processor advancement, whether it involves a doubling of speed every 14 or 20 months, is still a strong driver of computer obsolescence and revaluation/depreciation. For comparison, car engines don't become twice as fuel efficient every 14 months.

Every paper I've seen says that Moore's Law will still hold true for the next decade or more. For example, the 12" PowerBook was introduce in January 2003 with an 867 MHz processor. In Jan 2005, it was refreshed with a 1.5 GHz G4 processor (and it's more capable and costs less). That's still pretty close to the original 14 month Moore's Law.

Intel's own website claims that Moore's Law will continue for at least a decade: http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm

[ReggieX]

Moore's Law is about exactly one thing: the doubling of transistor density about every 18 months. AND NOTHING ELSE.


This entire thread and premise is a farce.

[sugar_coated]

Originally posted by ReggieX:

This entire thread and premise is a farce.

I, Conquer.

[f1000]

Originally posted by ReggieX:
Moore's Law is about exactly one thing: the doubling of transistor density about every 18 months. AND NOTHING ELSE.

The consequences of Moore's Law correlate DIRECTLY to CPU speeds. Take a look at pages 10 and 20 of this presentation by Dr. Moore before you tell me otherwise:
ftp://download.intel.com/research/si...SCC_021003.pdf

[Brass]

Originally posted by f1000:
Moore's Law was never an absolute physical law in the first place. The point is that processor advancement, whether it involves a doubling of speed every 14 or 20 months, is still a strong driver of computer obsolescence and revaluation/depreciation. For comparison, car engines don't become twice as fuel efficient every 14 months.

Every paper I've seen says that Moore's Law will still hold true for the next decade or more. For example, the 12" PowerBook was introduce in January 2003 with an 867 MHz processor. In Jan 2005, it was refreshed with a 1.5 GHz G4 processor. That's still pretty close to the original 14 month Moore's Law.

Intel's own website claims that Moore's Law will continue for at least a decade: http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm

And as you'll see in my edited post, this has nothing to do with it. Moore's Law is about transistors, not speed.

Your point about the 12" PowerBook is not really relevant to the top speed of a processor line, which is what I was talking about. They did not put the fastest chip they had in the 12" when it was introduced.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Brass:
And as you'll see in my edited post, this has nothing to do with it. Moore's Law is about transistors, not speed.

Moore's Law has been used as a catch all to describe many doubling phenomena in the computer industry.

For example, one common formulation of Moore's Law refers to the rapidly continuing advance in computing power per dollar cost.

http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/Moores_Law.htm

Originally posted by Brass:
Your point about the 12" PowerBook is not really relevant to the top speed of a processor line, which is what I was talking about. They did not put the fastest chip they had in the 12" when it was introduced.

This argument is moot, since Moore's Law applies to processing power/dollar as well. The amount of computing power you can buy for $1,800 today is more than twice the amount of computing power you could have gotten for the same price in January 2003. You don't have to compare top-of-the-line machines to see this.

[mitchell_pgh]

Where should I send my depreciation check...
my $1100 733 G4 tower still works fine with OS X.

50% of the value Einstein, not 1/2 of the original value a year (and it isn't true for Macs)

actually...

550 - 275 - 137.50 - 68.75 = $1031.25 (so my $1100 mac is now worth $68.75)

Yet I see my exact system on eBay for $400-$600

Hmmm...

[demograph68]

Wait a second... my mac will be worth less after I buy it? Crap.

[f1000]

I have posted a more literal comparison for those of you who have trouble with facts, figures, and abstract concepts. Three years ago, you could have bought this for $3,000:

Announced in January 2002, The PowerMac G4 (Quicksilver 2002) was the first Mac to break the Gigahertz barrier. Apart from the addition of a DDR SDRAM L3 cache on the middle and high-end models and several new graphics cards, the Quicksilver 2002 series was essentially a speed-bump of the Previous Quicksilver series.

The Quicksilver 2002 PowerMac G4 was available in three configurations: The 800 Mhz model, with 256 MB of RAM, a 40 GB hard drive, and a CD-RW drive, was $1599, the 900 Mhz configuration, with 256 MB of RAM, a 60 GB hard drive and a DVD-R drive, was $2299, and the high-end 1 Ghz model, with 512 MB of RAM, an 80 GB hard drive and a DVD-R drive, was $2999.

That "high-end" Quicksilver PowerMac G4 cost $3,000 in 2002 dollars and had a whopping 1 GHz G4 processor. By contrast, today's Mac Mini costs $500 and has a 1.25 GHz G4 processor.

As I speculated in my first post, it only took three years for a $500 Mac Mini to outclass (at least in terms of CPU MHz) a $3,000 PowerMac G4:

2002 Quicksilver PowerMac G4
$3,000
1 GHz G4

2005 Mac Mini
$500
1.25 GHz G4

[meelk]

I tire simply reading f1000's superior attitude posts. He is what I like to call the "intellectual troll".

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Not to mention a 6-year old is still several hundred dollars. Pismos are getting to be pretty old beasts (almost 6 years now) and are still going on eBay for over $400.

We should be measuring their value by average eBay closings, not maximum.

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by ReggieX:
Moore's Law is about exactly one thing: the doubling of transistor density about every 18 months. AND NOTHING ELSE.


This entire thread and premise is a farce.

Specially the assuption that the Mac mini will be manufactured and upgraded forever. Never has Apple released a computer this cheap, will it keep doing so?

[sworthy]

Flat-line depreciation will get you nowhere with computers.

next.

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by f1000:
As I speculated in my first post, it only took three years for a $500 Mac Mini to outclass (at least in terms of CPU MHz) a $3,000 PowerMac G4:

2002 Quicksilver PowerMac G4
$3,000
1 GHz G4

2005 Mac Mini
$500
1.25 GHz G4

Just think of Virginia Tech's G5 supercomputer. In 2 years, it will be outcomputed by an amateur mini Beowulf costing 1/6 the price. The difference is that Virginia Tech has been crunching numbers for their bigshot investors for three years.

If that supercomputer had been used for email and Word, then it would have been a waste.

By the same reasoning, it would be a waste to buy your grandma a dual 2.5GHz, no matter how much you love her.

[goMac]

Originally posted by f1000:
I have posted a more literal comparison for those of you who have trouble with facts, figures, and abstract concepts. Three years ago, you could have bought this for $3,000:

That "high-end" Quicksilver PowerMac G4 cost $3,000 in 2002 dollars and had a whopping 1 GHz G4 processor. By contrast, today's Mac Mini costs $500 and has a 1.25 GHz G4 processor.

As I speculated in my first post, it only took three years for a $500 Mac Mini to outclass (at least in terms of CPU MHz) a $3,000 PowerMac G4:

2002 Quicksilver PowerMac G4
$3,000
1 GHz G4

2005 Mac Mini
$500
1.25 GHz G4

Do not compare the Mac Mini to a Power Mac. The Power Mac has a completely different motherboard, and actual AGP slot, much more expandability, etc. It should be more expensive than the Mac Mini, even though the Mini has a faster processor. What you're doing is like comparing a 1.25 ghz Powerbook against a 1.33 ghz iBook. The Powerbook is still the better system.

[f1000]

Originally posted by The Godfather:
Specially the assuption that the Mac mini will be manufactured and upgraded forever. Never has Apple released a computer this cheap, will it keep doing so?

The price for an entry-level Mac has decreased annually for as long as I can remember. Three years from now, Apple will probably still be selling a $500 computer...although it may not be called a Mac Mini.

Originally posted by The Godfather:
Just think of Virginia Tech's G5 supercomputer. In 2 years, it will be outcomputed by an amateur mini Beowulf costing 1/6 the price. The difference is that Virginia Tech has been crunching numbers for their bigshot investors for three years.

I made allowances for this scenario in my first post.

Originally posted by The Godfather:
By the same reasoning, it would be a waste to buy your grandma a dual 2.5GHz, no matter how much you love her.

Love is not an economic argument.

[f1000]

Originally posted by sworthy:
Flat-line depreciation will get you nowhere with computers.

If you had bothered to read the PDF that I had linked to at the Federal Reserve, then you would�ve come across this passage:

How Fast Do Personal Computers Depreciate?
Concepts and New Estimates

Mark E. Doms, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Wendy E. Dunn, Federal Reserve Board
Stephen D. Oliner, Federal Reserve Board
Daniel E. Sichel, Federal Reserve Board
May 12, 2004

Forthcoming in Tax Policy and the Economy, edited by James Poterba, MIT Press.

ABSTRACT

This paper provides new estimates of depreciation rates for personal computers using an extensive database of prices of used PCs. Our results show that PCs lose roughly half their remaining value, on average, with each additional year of use. We decompose that decline into age-related depreciation and a revaluation effect, where the latter effect is driven by the steep ongoing drop in the constant-quality prices of newly-introduced PCs.

I put more stock in their well-reasoned estimates than in your unsubstantiated declaration.

[f1000]

Originally posted by goMac:
Do not compare the Mac Mini to a Power Mac. The Power Mac has a completely different motherboard, and actual AGP slot, much more expandability, etc. It should be more expensive than the Mac Mini, even though the Mini has a faster processor. What you're doing is like comparing a 1.25 ghz Powerbook against a 1.33 ghz iBook. The Powerbook is still the better system.

What you say is partly true. The two systems are not directly interchangeable for all applications.

My argument was that people shouldn't buy more computer than they need at the time of purchase. If all someone wants to do is a little word processing, web surfing, and email, then there's no reason for them to buy a PowerMac to stave off obsolescence. None of the extra capabilities that the PowerMac offers is going to add that much more to the person's Word and web surfing experience. In fact, three years from now, this person is going to walk into an Apple Store and discover that a new $500 iMac Mini (rev j) is snappier than his used PowerMac for those same applications.

I am not arguing that some people don't have a need for a more expensive rig; what I'm arguing against is the practice of buying more computer to insure against obsolescence.

[theolein]

Why buy a Powerbook instead of an iBook or why buy a PowerMac instead of an iMac or a Mac Mini? Why indeed. The answer to this thread is the same as businesses do when looking for answers to their technology problems: You buy the right tool for the job.

If all you're looking for is saving money, then you should be buying a PC with WinXP. They are far cheaper to buy or build, have more software and if you build your own, you can keep the same case, HD, RAM, motherboard or graphic card and update each part as time goes by. And if you use Linux, you can save even more.

The fact is that with PC hardware you'll always be cheaper.

The other fact is that there are other things that matter, such as simple preference, i.e. you simply find Macs much better quality in terms of software, maintenance, style, OS and design.

If you do video or audio editing professionally, then you're better off with a high end PowerMac. You can argue about how good an iMac or Mac Mini is till you're blue in the face, but they aren't professional grade machines. The same goes for designers and other graphic pros.

IF you're a professional developer you'll want a machine that can compile large code segments as quickly as possible. Time is money.

The i-series are fine for Office, home and student use.

As for the iBooks vs. the Powerbooks, the differences are much less pronounced, but the same applies. If you want a 15" or 17" screen, then an iBook is not for you. Unless you're willing to hack your iBook, you cannot use it with an external monitor for more screen space. If you need PC cards for some or other reason, you're also out of luck with an iBook. Maximum RAMa and VRAM, Firewire 800 for video or fast external drives etc also comes into play.

If you simply want a light portable computer with good battery life for school, Office or home use, then the iBook is for you.

I personally think you would be crazy if the first thought that went through your mind when buying a Mac was price. Price is very important, but please, it's only part of the deal, not the whole deal. I repeat: You buy the right tool for the job.

[f1000]

Originally posted by theolein:
I repeat: You buy the right tool for the job.

Buying the right tool for the job is not the same thing as paying more to stave off obsolescence. While I appreciate your lengthy and well-reasoned post, you did not address my original thesis. See the last sentence in the post above yours for clarification.

[Zimphire]

I don't care what they resell value is. I usually never sell my computers.

Also, I bought a B/W G3 tower in 99. I had that Computer till the end of 2003.

So I got a lot of out it.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by sugar_coated:
I, Conquer.

are you jim?

-r.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't care what they resell value is. I usually never sell my computers.

Caring is not an economic argument.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Also, I bought a B/W G3 tower in 99. I had that Computer till the end of 2003.

So I got a lot of out it.

Well, according to the authors of that Federal Reserve paper, Apple probably got more out of you than you did out of your B/W G3.

The G3's were indeed sweet machines when they were introduced.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by f1000:
The consequences of Moore's Law correlate DIRECTLY to CPU speeds. Take a look at pages 10 and 20 of this presentation by Dr. Moore before you tell me otherwise:
ftp://download.intel.com/research/si...SCC_021003.pdf

Computing has reached the point where, to the average user, the effects of Moore's Law are no longer as noticeable. On the PC side of things, cpu speeds are so high that, again for the average user, there is very little noticeable speed difference between a PC that was average 2 years ago and one that is average today (games are, of course, still a good tool to push the need for newer and better).

On the Mac side of things it's a little different. Apple uses it's OS as a tool to sell more hardware and continues to produce OS innovations which push the need for new hardware. Conversely, it is Microsoft's goal to sell more copies of Windows, as a result, it is in their best interest to make their OS run on as many computers as possible; I've got Windows XP running on a 9yr old 233mhz PC. This is not to say the Windows is better than MacOS, far from it, just that their strategies are different and that Microsoft's gives a PC a chance at a longer life.

[theolein]

Originally posted by f1000:
Buying the right tool for the job is not the same thing as paying more to stave off obsolescence. While I appreciate your lengthy and well-reasoned post, you did not address my original thesis. See the last sentence in the post above yours for clarification.

No, obviously buying the right tool for the job is not the same as paying more to stave off obsolescence. However, your argument still, IMO, refers mainly to consumers and not professionals who make their price calculations somewhat differently to yours. When a company buys its hardware, (let's assume that they prefer Macs for reasons of reliability, easier maintenance etc, or need it for the video or audio software) they will make take the obsolescence into account, which means that they know that their machines will probably need to be replaced in three to four years. If their productivity is important, they will buy machines that they feel will still be usable three years down the line, with software upgrades etc that will have come in that time.

This means, and I have concrete examples in the form of Migros, the largest supermarket chain in switzerland, which uses sunflower iMacs in their offices which were purchased about two years ago. They obviously didn't purchase PowerMacs because they would be overkill in an Office setting and would raise the purchase price enormously. They did, however, buy the fastest iMacs available at the time.

Another example would be a friend of mine who has a small software company. He two Macs, one an older Quicksilver PowerMac which serves as his file/web/mail/version control server, with maxxed out hard drives, and the second a 17" Powerbook, on which he does his development. Since he also does consulting he needed a portable to take with him to customers, and he needed a large screen since working all day on a 12" or 14" ibook would ruin his eyes. Since he's a small company, he will sell both machines eventually on ebay or Ricardo (more popular in Switzerland). Also , since he's a small company with no huge profits, he can't afford to buy new machines every two years. So he buys the machines that he can still sell at a decent price a few years down the road, but which also offer him the best bang for his buck right now.

You could argue that he could do his server off an iMac or mini with a Firewire external drive and his development off a 14" iBook and then be able to more cheaply get newer hardware in two years, but, as I said above, he needs a bigger screen to work on and he uses his 23" Cinema display that he got for his Quicksilver for dual monitors so as to spread out the windows, which would be a hack on the iBook, and he would be nuts to rely on an iMac or mini running 24/7 for his serving needs.

As I said, while price is a very important part of the equation, it isn't the only part.

The i-Series and mini are perfect for most home users, but your original post, stating that they are better economically is a bit too simplified. There are many home users who simply want a Powerbook with its 15" or 17" screen and fairly many who simply want the fastest G5 PowerMac available and have the money to buy one.

After all, playing Doom3 on a mini is no fun

[analogika]

I lost a LOT more money by buying a Rev. A 12" Powerbook over the iBook at the time.

As in, four times the loss, over two years.


However, I do have to wonder at the apparently vast amounts of disposable income you people have.

Most of my customers seem to be people who buy a machine according to budget and then stick with it until it ceases to do what they bought it for, or until a new feature becomes necessary but won't satisfactorily work on the old hardware.

I just had one guy in whose main machine was a Powerbook 120 (or so) - from 1992. He'll be upgrading because the battery died, and you can't run the thing on mains power.

[Eriamjh]

Depreciation is not necessarily tied to value.

Accountants depreciate things over time because the government won't let them take the whole deduction in one year. Typical is 3 years for a computer.

The original post would be true except for one thing: the true market value at the end of three or five years is not the same as the remaning value after depreciation.

Others have already pointed this out.

Although, buying a new cheap mac every year and selling the old may actually save a decent amount of cash compared to spending it all up front and hanging on to a machine for a while. But then again, so might buying a top of the line each year.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by f1000:
Caring is not an economic argument.

Yes, but if you don't resell, the point is moot.

Well, according to the authors of that Federal Reserve paper, Apple probably got more out of you than you did out of your B/W G3.

The G3's were indeed sweet machines when they were introduced.

Naw, I made a lot of money from that G3 in those years.

[theolein]

Originally posted by analogika:
I lost a LOT more money by buying a Rev. A 12" Powerbook over the iBook at the time.

As in, four times the loss, over two years.


However, I do have to wonder at the apparently vast amounts of disposable income you people have.

Most of my customers seem to be people who buy a machine according to budget and then stick with it until it ceases to do what they bought it for, or until a new feature becomes necessary but won't satisfactorily work on the old hardware.

I just had one guy in whose main machine was a Powerbook 120 (or so) - from 1992. He'll be upgrading because the battery died, and you can't run the thing on mains power.

The 12" Powerbook is the one machine I really wonder about. It's only faster than the 12" iBook by a tiny amount that will not be noticeable by the average user. And unless you really need a 12" with Superdrive or plan to use it at home with an external monitor and are not willing to use the iBook hack to do the same, the ports etc being the same, I can't see the value of buying one.

I think, however, that quite a lot of people got burnt buying a 12" PB when the iBook was still stuck at G3 speeds only to be surprised when the G4 iBooks came out.

[analogika]

Originally posted by theolein:
The 12" Powerbook is the one machine I really wonder about. It's only faster than the 12" iBook by a tiny amount that will not be noticeable by the average user. And unless you really need a 12" with Superdrive or plan to use it at home with an external monitor and are not willing to use the iBook hack to do the same, the ports etc being the same, I can't see the value of buying one.

There was no G4 iBook back when I got mine. I really wanted a G4 iBook, and the 12" PB was what they gave me. I needed a new machine at the time, so, hey.

The iBook monitor spanning hack is NOT a good idea, according to our techs. Those chips are UNTESTED for that function (which is why Apple gets them cheap in bulk), and the cooling is not set up to handle the extra load.

You can get lucky with tolerance variation, but odds are not bad that it will fry on you.

Also, iBooks have VGA vs. the 12" Powerbooks' DVI, Bluetooth only as BTO-option, no scroll-pad, and no audio input.

But generally, yes, I do recommend the iBook unless people *insist* on an internal DVD-R.

-s*

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Computing has reached the point where, to the average user, the effects of Moore's Law are no longer as noticeable. On the PC side of things, cpu speeds are so high that, again for the average user, there is very little noticeable speed difference between a PC that was average 2 years ago and one that is average today (games are, of course, still a good tool to push the need for newer and better).

On the Mac side of things it's a little different. Apple uses it's OS as a tool to sell more hardware and continues to produce OS innovations which push the need for new hardware. Conversely, it is Microsoft's goal to sell more copies of Windows, as a result, it is in their best interest to make their OS run on as many computers as possible; I've got Windows XP running on a 9yr old 233mhz PC. This is not to say the Windows is better than MacOS, far from it, just that their strategies are different and that Microsoft's gives a PC a chance at a longer life.

Uh, Panther runs still runs on the original 233MHz iMac. And according to most studies, Mac users upgrade less often than PC lusers. I think I remember the figure that PC users upgrade on average around every two to three years, while Mac users hold on for four to five years. Plus, I have often heard PC users complain about new versions of Windows requiring hardware upgrades. Both Apple and Microsoft would like to sell as much software as possible. Lastly, take a look at the projected requirements of ol' Longhorn. (In fairness to Microsoft, though, it's probable that by the time Microsoft comes out, it will be 2020, and older machines will meet those minimum requirements.) But this is not a PC vs. Mac ROI thread, so I digress.

Your initial posts were a bit confusing, f1000, because you seemingly implied that everyone would be better off with entry-level hardware. You clarified your position when you said that people should not recommend more hardware than individuals need. I don't think anyone does that, at least not around here. If someone just wants to run basic applications, they should get either an iBook, a mini or an eMac. Higher end iBooks and the iMac are there for midrange customers, and professionals have Power Macs and PowerBooks. The ideal is to always buy that which suits the individual best. Only dishonest sales people will try to sell high-end computers to people who clearly do not need them. So you're essentially barking up the wrong tree and belaboring an obvious point.

[misnomer]

Originally posted by The Godfather:
Just think of Virginia Tech's G5 supercomputer. In 2 years, it will be outcomputed by an amateur mini Beowulf costing 1/6 the price. The difference is that Virginia Tech has been crunching numbers for their bigshot investors for three years.

If that supercomputer had been used for email and Word, then it would have been a waste.

Actually, VTech's "Big Mac" is a really bad example to use as it failed to meet almost all their originally stated goals on their stated timeline. It hasn't been crunching numbers for bigshot investors for three years but instead has been in a pre-production state or dismantled for most of that time.

[ort888]

He is 100% right. My cousin was buying a computer and asked me for advice. I told him to buy a $500 dollar Dell. His mom wanted to know if it made more sense to spend more and get a computer that would take longer to be obsolete.

NO!

Never, ever ever buy a computer hoping that eventually you will need to use it's other features or buy it faster so it will last longer. It's a total sucker bet. I see people do this all the time. "Well, I could have gotten a $500 computer, but I spent $1,500 instead so I could get something that would last me several years."

Spend $500 today, and in a year and a half another $500 can buy you a computer that is much better than that $1,500 computer. You've saved $500 and have a faster computer. If you use your computer to make money, or if the speed is worth it too you RIGHT NOW, than go for the more expensive models. If not, get the cheapest one you can, with the features you want.

[goMac]

The other problem is Moore's law is quickly starting to not apply anymore. For people like us it is still very important, because we do Photoshop and games and very cpu intensive sutff. The average user only does Word or email. These days, any machine can handle these tasks well. The average user isn't going to be on a two year upgrade cycle. They'll probably keep their machine until it dies. They'll buy a machine with the functionality they need. Big screen, some upgrade slots if they want them, dvd burner, you get the idea. They don't care how fast the machine is, they just care about what it comes with. And these days thats really starting to matter the most. So when I recommend a machine, I just recommend what would be best based on what the user wants in a computer, and usually a little more I think they will need eventually. For a user who wants a machine "to last them a while" I will usually recommend a more expensive machine, simply because I think the build quality will probably be better.

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by misnomer:
Actually, VTech's "Big Mac" is a really bad example to use as it failed to meet almost all their originally stated goals on their stated timeline. It hasn't been crunching numbers for bigshot investors for three years but instead has been in a pre-production state or dismantled for most of that time.

Your source please?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
Uh, Panther runs still runs on the original 233MHz iMac.

233mhz PPC is more recent that 233mhz Pentium