[MrForgetable]

Eh.. I am in no way a "troll" as I am waiting until the summer to get my Mac, but my P4 first generation Dell has been almost flawless since Day 1 and it cost 850 dollars total. It may not be the fastest, but nothing has gone wrong yet. *knocks on wood*
But I'm looking foward to the Mac experience this summer!

[Link]

Originally posted by Rave:
Newsflash!!!

Macs *are* more expensive! (with a few exceptions)

Deal with it and move on.

The rest is just fluff.

Peace

The question isn't that they're more expensive BUT

Are macs worth the extra money?

[bugs]

.

OK, you know the money is coming out of your pocket when you buy a computer, but do you know where it goes?

When you buy a Dell, you give your money to Michael Dell and his associates. Lawyers, accountants, efficiency consultants, and a trickle to the slave labor that assembles the machines.

When you buy a Mac, you support research that actually develops new products, better human interfaces, as well as entire new concepts in electronics-enhanced living. Yes, Jobs sucks up too much of your money, but that's the price of genius unfortunately. Maybe if he takes over Disney he will take less of Apple's profits.

Every dollar you spend is a vote for the recipient. If you want to support mediocrity and/or criminal behavior, give your money to Dell, to WalMart, to Microsoft, and while you are at it, invest in Enron and Halliburton.

.

[bugs]

.

OK, you know the money is coming out of your pocket when you buy a computer, but do you know where it goes?

When you buy a Dell, you give your money to Michael Dell and his associates. Lawyers, accountants, efficiency consultants, and a trickle to the slave labor that assembles the machines.

When you buy a Mac, you support research that actually develops new products, better human interfaces, as well as entire new concepts in electronics-enhanced living. Yes, Jobs sucks up too much of your money, but that's the price of genius unfortunately. Maybe if he takes over Disney he will take less of Apple's profits.

Every dollar you spend is a vote for the recipient. If you want to support mediocrity and/or criminal behavior, give your money to Dell, to WalMart, to Microsoft, and while you are at it, invest in Enron and Halliburton.

.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by bugs:
Yes, Jobs sucks up too much of your money, but that's the price of genius unfortunately. Maybe if he takes over Disney he will take less of Apple's profits.

Jobs gets $1 per year from Apple. Sure, he got a nice plane and some stock options, but that doesn't translate into real money in the bank. He's already a billionaire.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
Jobs gets $1 per year from Apple. Sure, he got a nice plane and some stock options, but that doesn't translate into real money in the bank. He's already a billionaire.

dude.

Have you priced Gulfstream business jets?

Jobs got PAID bigtime.

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by I Me Mine:
Definitely unbelievable. XP comes with WMP.

Yes, I noticed that eventually. It didn't unfortunately declare itself until I tracked it down and, it would seem, "install' it. Completely unlike what happens when you slip a CD into a computer running OS X. The point is, NOTHING it seems to me, is automatic in Windows-- except that nothing is obvious! So your snide comment fails to impress. If I don't know HOW to make Windows work as efficiently as you do it still says nothing about the above cooments I made: just that you have to install or otherwise enable installed programs to work. What a joke! As I vigorously maintain... there is nothing about plug and play that has anything to do with Windows... any facsimile to that, is a coincidence.
btw, my Aussie friend is STILL unable to get his video chat working. We have been on the phone for the last hour to no avail. QED!

[I Me Mine]

Originally posted by rjwill246:
Yes, I noticed that eventually. It didn't unfortunately declare itself until I tracked it down and, it would seem, "install' it. Completely unlike what happens when you slip a CD into a computer running OS X. The point is, NOTHING it seems to me, is automatic in Windows-- except that nothing is obvious! So your snide comment fails to impress.

There was no "snide comment" - just the truth.

You put a cd in and a box will ask what do you want to do - such as play the cd, copy the cd etc.

Your complete rant about XP not only "fails to impress" but bears all the hallmarks of the worst kind of Mac zealot. Because you don't have a clue what you're doing you automatically label XP as rubbish. If a pc user said the same about OSX you'd be screaming blue murder.

XP isn't rubbish, neither is OSX. They both have their strengths and weaknesess, but you are just trying to bash XP to get brownie points here.

[mbryda]

Having been a PC tech for the last 10 years and doing Windows server admin for the last 5, I've been in the trenches quite a bit and see the stuff people buy. That being said, here's my $0.02.

Anyone that thinks Dell is a good PC (or even a decent PC) needs to have their head examined. Dell computers are the biggest piles of dung you can buy. Most other teir-1 vendors are the same, but Dell is probably the worst. (Although HP/Compaq is not far behind)

This is a fact, despite what Mikey Boy would have you beleive. In most benchmarks of teir-1 vendors' boxes, Dell places in the bottom middle or last of the pack. Also, most (if not all) of their low end boxes use shared video, where your video memory comes from the RAM you have in your computer. Have 256MB RAM And need 32MB for your video card? You now have 224MB for Windows and its applications. So your dog slow computer just became even slower.

They typically include many proprietary parts (motherboards, power supplies, video cards, etc) that are impossible to get replacements and drivers for. They went through a lot of this when people started upgrading their Windows ME boxes to XP. Dell didn't have drivers and didn't want to support those boxes any more. And most of the "generic" drivers refused to work with the proprietary BIOS'es (mainly video) that they used - Dell told people "Sorry, we only support the OS the box shipped with". I won't bore you with the other motherboard stuff where they are pretty much impossible to upgrade with CPU upgrades, as the generic Intel reference boards they use pretty much only allow what CPU they shipped the box with to be used. Also, their support site is a nightmare to navigate.

Where I work (I'm in the server Dept. and we won't touch a Dell server with a 100 foot pole - we need reliability) they just "switched" to Dell for the desktop boxes (from IBM) and I wish the client relations guys good luck. They're going to be plenty busy fixing those POS's. Already they've ordered laptops that have failing and started locking up within 2 weeks of use. I feel very sorry for them getting conned into Dell. Oh well, maybe they will see that saving $10 on a box is not worth spending $1000+ in labor to maintain it in the 1st month. Needless to say, they will pry my Thinkpad from my cold dead hands if they try to replace it with a Hell, err, Dell.

Cost is not that big deal for a Mac. When I bought my iMac in '02, I could biuld a PC for $1500 that did all the iMac did. But, I knew what a nightmare doing video editing on it was. So I spent the extra $300 and got the 15" iMac with DVD-RW. Best computer I've ever owned or built. Uptime averages 35 days of heavy use, and like the proverbial Timex, takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Before the iMac, I didn't think much about Macs. Now I wonder why I didn't make the switch sooner.

When you compare a similarly configured Mac to, say a Dell. You can get a $599 stripper De-Celeron Dell with 256MB and have a machine that is slower than an 800Mhz eMac (De-Celerons are GARBAGE) with no software or software that sucks. Or you can get a $799 eMac that actually runs well, has superior support, will perform better, and have best-of-breed software. Or you can pony up ther $1000 for an eMac that can burn DVD's. Want an LCD display? Get the iMac with the best in class display added to the best software.

Where's the value in that Dell now? With them you get: Inferior hardware, inferior software, inferior support, and a generally crappy experience. But you save $200. Ooh, the first time you call me or another tech to fix that box, you just erased your savings and probably went in the hole. And the unintuitive way XP works amazes me. I've been installing a lot of CD burners lately (virus fears have people wanting backup solutions), and it's always a PITA to explain how to burn a CD or backup.

XP: Drag your files to the CD burner (whichever that is D/E/F drive) and then right click and pick burn and follow the wizard.

Non-XP: Open your CD burning program and make a data cd by dragging and dropping (or adding files) to the CD. Then burn it following the promprs.

OSX: Put in your CD, drag the files to it. Drag it to the trash or right click and pick burn.

I think Apple should try a headless i/eMac and price it at $500 and see what happens. I think people would buy it to try it. They could use their current monitor and stuff. And it would be a good thing for Apple. Just put like 1 PCI/AGP slot in it and restrict it to the G4 as to not cannibalize tower sales. That should be easily doable.

Oh well, enough ranting.

[365]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
Jobs gets $1 per year from Apple. Sure, he got a nice plane and some stock options, but that doesn't translate into real money in the bank. He's already a billionaire.

Mr Jobs last year took his now legendary $1 salary but when you read the share holders report you discover that he also had (massive) bonuses, expenses, stock options and stock buy back etc.. all to the tune of over $200,000,000!

Great work if you can get it.

Mr Charisma may be great for Expo's but the real men are the unsung heroes, the faces that we never see, the programmers, the UI designers etc..

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Link:
The question isn't that they're more expensive BUT

Are macs worth the extra money?

If you work with audio, video or still images: yes.

or

If you're not very technical: yes.

or

if you're very technical and would like to run unix with a nicer interface than linux/freebsd can offer: yes.

if you're a hardcore gamer: no.

if you want to download all your software for free: no.

if you're a nuts and bolts hardware type that masturbates to your 3DMark scores: no.

[RooneyX]

Dells are good for games and watching DVDs.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Dells are good for games and watching DVDs.

actually, Dells are not good for games.

Alienware makes a decent gaming rig.

However, for the ultimate gaming machine, self-built is still the way to go.

If I were still a hardcore-teenage-gamer I would still be a PC user.

[rmanger]

For someone to say Windows vs. MacOS is to mean PCs vs. Macs because Windows is ONLY run on PCs (yes, Windows does run on VirtualPC, but Windows still thinks its running on a PC), and MacOS is ONLY run on Macs, so hardware is an included cost. With that said, let's look at reality here. PC's and Windows can beat Mac and MacOS X on price, for both reasons legal and illegal.

From the standpoint of the home user, let's look at the costs, relative to a Mac.

Cost of Hardware Initially:
Very cheap. Just custom build a PC for yourself. Even if you don't shop well, you can still usually beat the cost of buying a name brand PC. However, if you do shop well, there are even more substantial savings. Building a PC is easier than you might think. Read some tutorials on the Internet, or read several PC magazines. There are plenty of sources. If you know what you're doing, the time it takes to build your own PC is almost always less than the shipping time.

But maybe you don't have the time to actually go through the whole process, so just get a friend with computer know-how to build you one. If you're lucky, you can get labor free, but if not, at least it's cheaper than buying a pre-built.

Macs are cost competitive with pre-built PCs, but are more expensive than custom-built PCs. If you want to save money on the hardware, build your own PC.

Cost of Hardware Over Time:
Identical. Since you built your own PC, you know what parts went in there, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. Apple builds Macs out of good parts, so no problems here either.

Cost of Software Initially:
Infinitely cheaper. Windows and all Windows software is free because you can just pirate it from a ridiculous amount of sources. It isn't legal, but that's what happens in the real world. With so many Windows users out there, it is easy to get pretty much any software you want without spending a dime.

Contrast with MacOS software, which must all be paid for because usually no one around has Macs in the first place. Add in the fact that Mac users are generally more honest than their PC using counterparts, with a fervor for supporting the burgeoning Mac developer, which results in great difficulty finding some software titles.

Cost of Software Over Time:
Extremely Expensive. Windows has the tendency to get security breaks/viruses/trojans/worms and whatever else, so the cost is not in the software, which can be freely pirated, but the cost is in the time installing all the latest security patches/anti-virus definitions, and so on. The time is minimized if you are on broadband, but dial-up is murder. Windows also has the nasty habit of requiring lots of maintenance, like defragging and reinstalling. This also takes time away from doing useful things.

And just to note, no one calls tech support because there is usually a computer savvy friend (more likely several of them) that can help you for free. But sometimes even these computer nerds can get stumped. When that happens, it'll be like playing duck-duck-goose with tech support, and this waste of time can get frustrating.

Macs have good security, plus MacOS X has no known viruses, trojans, or worms. This is good. Security patches can take time to download, but there are no known breaches yet, so these patches aren't necessarily a requirement. MacOS X requires far less maintenance than Windows.

Perspective from Schools/Businesses:

Cost of Hardware Initially:
Extremely cheap. PC manufacturers simply have better offers than Apple. These guys are notorious for selling their PCs at a loss so they could make up for it on accessories. Usually, the accessories can't be afforded anyway.

Cost of Hardware Over Time:
Varies from Slightly Expensive to Very Expensive. Mass production of commodity boxes comes at the price of poor quality parts. The IT departments usually has a storerooms full of replacement parts in case things go wrong. This takes uses money and storage space. It also takes time for the IT guy to isolate the problem and replace the broken part.

Macs still use the same high-quality parts that the home user gets, so failure rates are low.

Cost of Software Initially:
Infinitely Cheaper. Unlike the home user who can get away with pirating, schools and businesses have to stay legal. However, there is another way that they get free software and that is through Microsoft's "millions of dollars in charity work."

Cost of Software Over Time:
Extremely Expensive. Microsoft's licensing programs take the cake on costs. Also, the army of IT people needed to maintain Windows costs big time. The time it takes to get all the latest patches and updates is decent, since the computers are probably connected to the Internet on a T3 line. This assumes that the latest worm attack didn't hit the network already. If it did, then repairing the damage is horrendously time consuming.

Just an observation, but the maintenance cost of Windows seems to scale exponentially as the network grows.

Apple's unlimited licensing programs are very cheap to buy. Schools and businesses are recommended to buy anti-virus software, but it isn't an absolute requirement. Many of these establishments don't have anti-virus on their Macs.

Another casual observation, but MacOS maintenance costs seem to scale linearly as the network grows.

The Conclusion:
For home use, PCs are cheaper because you can build them yourself, and the software is free because you can pirate it, but the time it takes to maintain Windows is a nightmare. So the choice here is whether time or money is more precious to you. If it's money, the PC is cheaper. If its time, the Mac is cheaper. So don't discount on Macs always being less expensive than Windows PC when it comes to home use, because the PC can be much cheaper!

For schools/businesses, the Mac has a definite edge. Although initial costs are extremely low, the costs of maintaining Windows make MacOS look like a bargain. Macs are much cheaper when used on a bigger scale.

[bojangles]

Originally posted by rmanger:
For home use, PCs are cheaper because � the software is free because you can pirate it.

Not to start a flame war, but saying Windows-based PCs are cheaper because all the software is freely pirate-able is pretty suspect. I know you addressed the fact that Mac users tend to be more honest, but
1) I know plenty of Mac users that use pirated software up the wazoo.
2) There�s still plenty of computer users out there (Mac-, Wintel-, or otherwise) that aren�t thieves.

Saying that something is cheaper because it�s easier to use for illegal activities doesn�t work for me; is a Viper is cheaper than a Volkswagen because you can get away from the cops more quickly?

My wife and I could pirate all the Mac software we want, but we decided long ago that we�re not going to do that�and we never will. You�re right that our morals help the Mac OS software developer, but that�s really irrelevant to our reasoning. We try to do what�s right in all times and in all places, and stealing isn�t part of doing what�s right. Period.

[-Q-]

I completely agree with your point. Software isn't free and the argument is facetious.

And I'm sorry, the average consumer is not going to build their own PC. The geeks who do that are a completely different breed than the mainstream PC -using audience that a cost-benefit analysis like this would be targeted.

Oh, and just because you (rmanger) can't find mac software in your pirate circles, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[JasonA]

You have to look at deal prices too, which other that refurbs aren't really available on the Mac.

As an example, by using rebates and coupons, the last Dell I bought was about $450 for a 2.6ghz P4 (not a celeron) with a DVD burner and a good ATI Radeon card (not built-in video). I had no problems with it at all, though I did put together my next machine myself for better speed. So for initial outlay I just can't agree that the Mac comes anywhere close. If you want to compare a dual G5 system to a dual Xeon system (Xeons have always been a bad deal), then it's comparable. But if you're comparing systems that normal people buy, it's not.

But I do realize I'm a techno geek, and not typical at all. So I have no problem with the statement that support costs are typically much lower on a Mac. My mother should have a Mac. I very possibly will have one too, if they ever release the next generation G5, which is why I'm hanging out here. You're on much surer footing talking about easy of use and maintenance.

[The Placid Casual]

Hmm, I have been biting my toungue on this far the last 20 minutes since reading the thread, but have decided to jump in... and I just know that Link and myelf are going to clash on this!

Before I continue, I will just jump in what Q said... I am a Geek, not a 'consumer', so this is the tint that is being applied to this post.

I just made a PC. Specs as follows:

3200+ Athlon XP,
80 Gig HD,
Radeon 9600 XT,
1 Gig RAM,
Cheiftec Dragon case (yep Link you were right!)
DVD+-RW
Windows XP.

All in, it has come to about *�450* to build.

It has not crashed once, and is ultra stable. It is fast, it is a bit noisy due to the fact that I have 6 fans in there(!), it does everything computer wise that a Mac can do, heck, it even runs iTunes! It has 2 more free optical bays, 4 more Hard Drive bays, 6 free PCI bays, and I can upgrade anything I want to when new Graphics cards, PCI cards or hardware comes out.

It is compelling as a computing option in terms of performance, price and space for future expansion.

I look at the Mac option for a similar spec machine... I fail to find one. The closest is a 1.6 Ghz G5. But I miss out on the expansion options, freedom to switch hardware freely, gfx availabilty etc etc. And for this I would pay �1400. :/ Hmmm.

�950 is surely a lot of money in anyone's book.

Software wise, I am lucky as I have All the Adobe stuff for Mac and Windows so I can switch freely, but M$ office wise, things are much cheaper for the PC by a fair margin, as are mosty other appications , most probably due to the fact that so many more copies are sold. Game wise, the PC wins hands down.

With the advent of Athlon 64 systems for around �500, and the imminent arrival of a 64 bit version of windows, things are getting very interesting in thr PC world.

Yes there are virii, but with Firefox, some common sense about opening attachments, some decent Anti-Virus software, or even free stuff such as Spybot or trojan hunter things are pretty much safe.

So why have I just bought (an albeit used), Powermac?

It comes down to OS X and the elegence of the OS, but also personal preference...

I prefer to use Indesign on OS X, and as a lot of my work is indesign based, I figured that as I can afford it, I'd go with a system exclusivey for that... I bought a used Dual 450 as I am having doubts about buying new from Apple at the moment, and also the fact that there is not a cmahien to fit my kind of user demographic.

Powerbooks are still G4 based, same for iMacs and eMacs. Expandability is nonexistant. G5's are to me, a fair bit overpriced.

I am finding it harder and harder to recommend people to buy a Mac... OS X is great, but when compared to building your own box, or buying a basic machine for simple computer tasks, is it *that* much better than XP, or �500-1000+ better hardware wise? I don't think it is as clear as it once was.

To me, there comes a point where Apple has either increase the specs of system to make it really cutting edge every few months, or drop prices... But also make a 'Geek' box... it would be a surefire winner:

A 'tower' based system with the option of 2+ Optical bays. 4+ Hard drive bays. SATA, IDE, Firewire, USB 2, gig ethernet, PCI-Express, 8x AGP? and a G5. Doesn't matter what it is, but 1.5 ghz would be more than sufficient (surely as good as an Athlon 2500+, the PC overclockers current chip of choice?). Thing is, the price point has to be around the current Powermac G4s... or �1000/$1000.

This attracts, people who like to tinker, people who may do in future, people who want to protect their investment by adding things over time, people who think they may want to, people who refuse to buy AIO systems, people who want to chop and change their systems.

It caters fo the midrange 'geek' that is currently excluded from Apples prospective market. The person who won't spend �2000 on a dual G5, but then doesn't want an iMac either... if this machien hit the market, market share would definitely increase as I could see the machine selling like nothing else... It appeals on all levels, and brings performance, elegence, the bewst OS, and indeed expandability to the masses...

And I could finally advise people that Apple was a good option without that hint of doubt that lingers in the back of my mind.

Peace,

Marc

*Let the flaming begin.*

[jcadam]

In my opinion (and keep in mind I'm a gigantic geek),
If you are paying less than $1000 for a brand-new computer, you are probably getting GARBAGE. Either the build quality will suck (eMachines, Compaq, etc. Remember Packard Bell? :giggle: :snort: ) or it will be pathetically underpowered and/or unexpandable (eMac). Of course, the first run of eMacs had build quality issues also

What's up with Gateway 2000 these days? They used to make a decent x86 box, but they have been putting out CRAP lately. HP makes some good electronics and laser printers, but their PCs SUCK.

The only PC maker I can think of that builds a decent box is Alienware.

All the macs I have bought have been top-notch in quality. Most of the PCs I have built myself have been decent (Biostar motherboards suck!).

[rmanger]

To deny piracy is to deny the cost advantages of millions of PCs worldwide.

Piracy is immoral and illegal, but it is so prevalent, it's impossible to factor it out. bojangles, I know that there are Mac pirates, but the fact of the matter is they saved money on software. The thing is, PC pirates have it much easier than we do, due to the sheer number of users out there. And yes, there are many PC users that probably don't pirate, but I still have not found a single PC user who hasn't pirated at least one piece of software.

Heck, most of these people have no idea that they're even stealing! And some PC users I know are actually proud of it, and hold bragging rights to who has the most pirated software. It's funny. All the people I know who pirate Mac software at least recognize that they are pirating software. But moral issues aside, pirating software DOES save money for the user, and it is so much easier on the PC side.

The prime example of this is on college campuses, where morals are loose, and everyone needs to save an extra buck. Everyone pirates here. But colleges aren't the only guilty ones...

-Q-, piracy exists on all platforms. The problem with Mac piracy is that most Mac users are forced to go online to find software, which can get frustrating. Not all software titles are available online. Also, you are basically blowing all your privacy by going online in the first place. PC users can just get a burned CD from one of their several PC using friends, while retaining their anonymity.

Also, the general mainstream PC audience is smart enough to build their own PCs, its just that they're afraid to do it. If these people are smart enough to assemble their own furniture, pool tables, ping pong tables, or (horror) children's outdoor playsets, these same people are smart enough to assemble their own PCs. Really, it isn't as hard as people think!

[bojangles]

Originally posted by rmanger:
To deny piracy is to deny the cost advantages of millions of PCs worldwide.�

rmanger, I�m not denying the existence of piracy; I just don�t sink to that level.

The prime example of this is on college campuses, where morals are loose, and everyone needs to save an extra buck. Everyone pirates here. But colleges aren't the only guilty ones...

While college campuses may be a prime example of loose morals (including software piracy), it�s certainly not universal. My wife and I made it through my entire college career without pirating software, and I�m guessing most of our friends�who also have high moral standards�did the same. I�ll be going back for a Master�s in a couple of months, and I guarantee we�ll make it through that without piracy, too.

Of course stealing something is going to be cheaper than actually purchasing it; I just think the price of theft is way too high.

The problem with Mac piracy is that most Mac users are forced to go online to find software, which can get frustrating. Not all software titles are available online. Also, you are basically blowing all your privacy by going online in the first place. PC users can just get a burned CD from one of their several PC using friends, while retaining their anonymity.

In all honesty, I�ve got plenty of Wintel-using friends, but I think I�d be hard-pressed to find one that actually owns (or has even pirated) the software I need/want. Mac OS�based software, on the other hand, is readily available to me: I can�t even tell you how many times I�ve been scoffed at for refusing friends� and family�s offer to burn me a copy of something or other. (It�s even worse if you go to a MUG meeting!) I really don�t believe that pirated Windows software is more readily available than pirated Mac software; it just depends on who you hang out with. Besides which, Mac users tend to have more software in the first place. Why ask a dozen thieves to peddle their warez when you can just ask one? That�s anonymity! But I digress�.

Bottom line: if you�re going to base your TCO argument on stealing stuff, why not just steal a dual G5 and be done with it?

[rmanger]

Hey, I would factor in stealing dual G5s into the argument if it were as easy to do and is as widespread as piracy, but it's not. The cost of thievery tools, the time, and the effort expended to steal a dual G5 (and get away with it, of course) would most likely be much greater than the actual monetary cost of the computer itself, and that's why no one does it.

So stealing G5s doesn't count.

[yoyoman]

dell flat out lost to apple in tests go to apple.com/powermac or whatever the site is. Im serious. Speed wise it sux price wise a wd hd is the same price regardless of the os same goes for the ram. IF you do get a cheep pc box u are not counting a monitor therefore being under 700 bucks.

[yoyoman]

dell flat out lost to apple in tests go to apple.com/powermac or whatever the site is. Im serious. Speed wise it sux price wise a wd hd is the same price regardless of the os same goes for the ram. IF you do get a cheep pc box u are not counting a monitor therefore being under 700 bucks.

[Link]

Yeah, when you want perfectly unbiased tests you go to the company's website and read their tests

Truth is I don't care. As a 24/7 workhorse my dual 800 really runs it's paces as well as it did the day I bought it, despite the fact it could use a bit more ram (I only have 256 and want 1.5g.. my g4 probably has set the world record for pageouts a day several times over). .. and a new video card

That'd make me good to go with it for another 2 or 3 years. I don't give a damn about games as long as I can play RTCW and a few racing games (ok no racing games on OS X >_<)

When the time is ripe I'll look into building a dual opteron machine... only to sit next to my dual g5 (yeah.. if that ever happens).

Right now, I'm still keeping an eye out for my next computer.. one that's going to be going around with me. As much as I want a powerbook 17" (or 15" OMG those are nice), I might STILL go back to having windows on one of my machines.. after all there's itunes, xchat, firefox, and I can stomach the rest (though it's not as fun mounting a local share.. too yucky).

It'd still be nice to have photoshop, dreamweaver, etc as readily available on the pc.. the ONE thing I want however is wolfenstein playability (and anything in the $1500 range will definately have that).

So I've always had this thing about mac laptops being nicer looking, in fact I've been convinced that's where my money would go because of this.. but $1500 gets me what? A 12" screen and a little 867 single? G4's are NOT my game if not dual.

Thing is no PC laptop comes close to mac laptop in terms of 1. the beauty, 2. form, 3. style. ... well that's all one thing but I wouldn't mind having a portable that can play a few of my old racing games too

I try to pride myself in being multi platform. heheeee. Anyway, $1600 toshiba notebook that's got some really nice guts but a screen no better than the 14" ibooks, no capability of ever running OS X but having most of the apps I need....

I think it'll be fine

[mbryda]

Originally posted by rmanger:
Macs are cost competitive with pre-built PCs, but are more expensive than custom-built PCs. If you want to save money on the hardware, build your own PC.

BS. By the time you use good quality hardware and legal OS copies, you're within $2-300 of a Mac. Trust me - I've done the cost comparisons. It's pretty darn close when you use quality parts. Use junk and you will save a few $$, but get more headaches.

[JasonA]

Depends on what you're comparing. If you're going with a top of the line dual Opteron, then maybe it's within 2-3 hundred.

But you can configure a machine that's easily a match for a single processer G5 for under $1K. And that's not skimping on any of the parts (antec case, asus mb, 256mb corsair ram -- I'd go with more but I'm trying to match the G5 config, 3.2ghz p4 or athlon64, dvd writer, 80gb maxtor sata drive, geforce 5200 ultra, microsoft optical mouse/keyboard, legitimate WindowsXP Pro).

I just configured the parts over at Newegg to see and came up with a total of $971. You could get better deals on some of that equipment if you searched. That's a far cry from the $1799 for a 1.6ghz G5. There's a lot of reasons for choosing a Mac (less support costs, better included software, it's cool). Initial cost is not the one.

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by JasonA:
Depends on what you're comparing. If you're going with a top of the line dual Opteron, then maybe it's within 2-3 hundred.

But you can configure a machine that's easily a match for a single processer G5 for under $1K. And that's not skimping on any of the parts (antec case, asus mb, 256mb corsair ram -- I'd go with more but I'm trying to match the G5 config, 3.2ghz p4 or athlon64, dvd writer, 80gb maxtor sata drive, geforce 5200 ultra, microsoft optical mouse/keyboard, legitimate WindowsXP Pro).

I just configured the parts over at Newegg to see and came up with a total of $971. You could get better deals on some of that equipment if you searched. That's a far cry from the $1799 for a 1.6ghz G5. There's a lot of reasons for choosing a Mac (less support costs, better included software, it's cool). Initial cost is not the one.

As you say,with a bit if hunting around, you could source it all even cheaper...

No way can anyone compare build costs of PCs and Macs. The PC will always win.

[Link]

The PC will ALWAYS win.

Especially if you don't include the shipping costs, tax, OS costs, assembly time (time is money), time installing the OS, extras like cables and screws (though most of the time those are all included), and the fact that you're going to go with a shitty antec case vs a high quality aluminum case.

There's more like you'll probably choose a $75 motherboard vs a $140 one, a $50 geforce 4mx vs a $140 radeon 9600, and whatnot.

When someone says they can build a kickass PC for under $500 I say they're cutting corners... LOTS of corners.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by ottawadave:
Apple is most competitive in the server realm.

Dual 2GHz G5 1U rackmount server, dual gigabit ethernet, and unlimited client server software; all for $4000. Competitve is an understatement, more like cow mutilation.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
No way can anyone compare build costs of PCs and Macs. The PC will always win.

Yep. PCs will always be cheaper because they have no development costs associated with them, that cost is associated with the component manufacturers. Dell, Gateway, Acer, et al don't have to innovate anything as all their parts come from Abit, Creative Labs, Intel, etc. They just put their logo on it. If they're REALLY good, they might put it in a custom case... but even that is manufactured by 3rd party. IBM and HP are pretty much the only exceptions.

Apple has to design their own cases, chipsets, motherboards, and an operating system while still trying to remain competitive. Hell, they're even had their hand in the design of the PPC 970.

Since PC "manufacturers" have no real costs in R&D other than marketing, they can produce the $400 PC. Apple can't make a $400 PC without losing $600 a unit in development costs.

[BigDaddy]

Originally posted by -Q-:
The fact that you have to add 'with a good virus program' proves my point entirely.

I've spent entirely too much time helping friends and relatives download and install Ad Aware, Spybot and AVG. Not to mention the myriad security updates that come out, sometimes 200 days AFTER MS has been told about them (WTF is up with that???).

So a machine running XP is easy to beat: Dual G5 running OS X.

If Apple had the market share that the pc did I would bet the virus problem would be just as bad. The fact the mac does not have many virus problems is because they are such a small market share.

[Link]

Originally posted by BigDaddy:
If Apple had the market share that the pc did I would bet the virus problem would be just as bad. The fact the mac does not have many virus problems is because they are such a small market share.

Actually the reason that OS X doesn't have any virus problems is because it won't automatically execute harmful things. End of story.

No other operating system in the history of man has had so many stupid errors as windows. Ever.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by BigDaddy:
If Apple had the market share that the pc did I would bet the virus problem would be just as bad. The fact the mac does not have many virus problems is because they are such a small market share.

Yeah, I can see the viruses for Mac OS X. Open an email in Enterage and the attachment downloads. Ok. It's a Word file. Open it. Word file asks for Authentication. *trash*

Well, that was pointless.

[bojangles]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Yeah, I can see the viruses for Mac OS X. Open an email in Enterage and the attachment downloads. Ok. It's a Word file. Open it. Word file asks for Authentication. *trash*

Well, that was pointless.

On the one hand, you�re right; it�s basically pointless. On the other hand, someone would be stupid enough to authenticate it. The problem with making something foolproof is that fools are so ingenious.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by BigDaddy:
If Apple had the market share that the pc did I would bet the virus problem would be just as bad. The fact the mac does not have many virus problems is because they are such a small market share.

Wrong. If I hear that BS argument 1 more time, I'm going to scream.

Windows and other OS's are fundamentally different in their operation. Windows, by design is highly insecure. It's easy to write viruses for. Why spend 2 days writing a virus for a *nix platform when you can get a Windows virus written in 2 hours? Not to mention, getting it to run to do damage on a *nix platform is infinitely harder.

People, it's not the market share, it's the core OS.

[jcadam]

Not to mention on Windows you have M$ Outbreak doing the difficult job of spreading your virus across the network for you.

[yoyoman]

you say thats unbiast go to www.barefeats.com Go to techtv.com I mean they show the proof as well. If you think apple sux at speed that much don't buy it easy as that. That is what you pretty much sayin not believing apples site. They even show the program or what ever its called that they used to do the test. Do the test your self then if you don't believe it. I do test my self and I know flat out my g4 kills the older p4's flat out hands down.

Originally posted by Link:
Yeah, when you want perfectly unbiased tests you go to the company's website and read their tests

Truth is I don't care. As a 24/7 workhorse my dual 800 really runs it's paces as well as it did the day I bought it, despite the fact it could use a bit more ram (I only have 256 and want 1.5g.. my g4 probably has set the world record for pageouts a day several times over). .. and a new video card

That'd make me good to go with it for another 2 or 3 years. I don't give a damn about games as long as I can play RTCW and a few racing games (ok no racing games on OS X >_<)

When the time is ripe I'll look into building a dual opteron machine... only to sit next to my dual g5 (yeah.. if that ever happens).

Right now, I'm still keeping an eye out for my next computer.. one that's going to be going around with me. As much as I want a powerbook 17" (or 15" OMG those are nice), I might STILL go back to having windows on one of my machines.. after all there's itunes, xchat, firefox, and I can stomach the rest (though it's not as fun mounting a local share.. too yucky).

It'd still be nice to have photoshop, dreamweaver, etc as readily available on the pc.. the ONE thing I want however is wolfenstein playability (and anything in the $1500 range will definately have that).

So I've always had this thing about mac laptops being nicer looking, in fact I've been convinced that's where my money would go because of this.. but $1500 gets me what? A 12" screen and a little 867 single? G4's are NOT my game if not dual.

Thing is no PC laptop comes close to mac laptop in terms of 1. the beauty, 2. form, 3. style. ... well that's all one thing but I wouldn't mind having a portable that can play a few of my old racing games too

I try to pride myself in being multi platform. heheeee. Anyway, $1600 toshiba notebook that's got some really nice guts but a screen no better than the 14" ibooks, no capability of ever running OS X but having most of the apps I need....

I think it'll be fine

[Link]

Originally posted by yoyoman:
you say thats unbiast go to www.barefeats.com Go to techtv.com I mean they show the proof as well. If you think apple sux at speed that much don't buy it easy as that. That is what you pretty much sayin not believing apples site. They even show the program or what ever its called that they used to do the test. Do the test your self then if you don't believe it. I do test my self and I know flat out my g4 kills the older p4's flat out hands down.

You don't even know what side I'm on do you.

I wonder if putting that post through the shizzolator would improve it's grammar level any

[sarrett]

It's very interesting reading this thread as I'm anticipating the arrival of a G3-400 I bought on ebay. This will be the first mac I've owned (I had an Apple IIe in the 80's) but I've heard so much good stuff about OSX and I wanted to try it. It doesn't surprise me that Macs would be more stable and better able to handle multitasking in that OSX is built on a backbone of UNIX, an OS I've used on and off for years and am quite fond of. Windows XP gets messed up more easily than one would like. I had to re-install when a spyware program hosed IE. My Aunt and Uncle ended up buying a new machine when their machine got messed up and they couldn't fix it. (I suspect it was a software problem but I don't live close enough to have go over to their house to look at it.) You don't hear about these stories with Mac. This is what does add to the cost of ownership.

Wendy

[Westfoto]

Here is a great place to get more info on this subject.

http://macvspc.info/

This is an issue that will never go away.

[olePigeon]

My PC is used for 1 thing, and 1 thing only. To play games. But I have to reinstall the f*cking thing every 3 months like clockwork because it gets slower, and slower, and slower, and slower. And, on occasion, I have to reinstall the whole thing at random because I install a "critical security update" recommended by Microsoft that makes my computer completely unusable.

I'm also on my third motherboard and 2nd audio card in just 3 years. Not because I wanted to upgrade, but because they broke.

Meanwhile, I've had my Beige G3 for nearly 7 years without a single problem and only recently "upgraded" to a different Beige G3 that's been sitting around in a school environrment for 5 years (so you can imagine the abuse it's been through.)

PCs are crap. They're cheap. They're fast. And when they break, you buy a new one.

[istallion]

Originally posted by mbryda:
Wrong. If I hear that BS argument 1 more time, I'm going to scream.

Windows and other OS's are fundamentally different in their operation. Windows, by design is highly insecure. It's easy to write viruses for. Why spend 2 days writing a virus for a *nix platform when you can get a Windows virus written in 2 hours? Not to mention, getting it to run to do damage on a *nix platform is infinitely harder.

People, it's not the market share, it's the core OS.

Windows security may not be great, but this seems fallacious from even an intuitive level.

If the design of windows is highly insecure, then why are most patches released within days of attacks in the wild, and are usually a few hundred kilobytes? Can they really redesign & test the faulty architecture so quickly and with so little code updated?

It's easier to write a successful windows virus/worm because you often don't even need to have a flaw in the system. Send out an email to click-happy housewives(who run in administrator accounts!) and launch a process, tell it to run on bootup. It can access any file or open any network connection. They could even name the process IM_A_VIRUS.exe and they would never even know. A similar scheme would work on about 0.0001% of linux users.

[Graymalkin]

The design of Windows is very insecure. All the security patches do is patch particular exploits or change the behavior of problematic systems. After Melissa made its rounds Microsoft released updates to Office which changed the default handling of macros and added a verification step to run a macro. Office apps patched for Melissa et al wouldn't run embedded macros by default and actually warned the user they could be viruses. Unfortunately they also added an option to always run macros despite the risk.

That particular case shows off a number of design problems which reduced the security of Windows. First VBA macros were allowed full system access from inside of a document. While a Perl or OSA script (AppleScript) can do some damage, they can't be embedded into documents and automatically executed when the document is opened. The second design flaw is the default execution action of the macros. Office would execute a VBA script no matter what it did. Melissa could have e-mailed itself then deleted io.sys or borked up vital Registry keys then told the computer to restart. The third design flaw was the lack of an authentication system in Windows 9x. There is no authentication in Windows 9x which means any process on the computer has access to the entire machine. A program that is simply buggy but not malicious could hose the system.

Windows 2000/XP haven't really come a long way since then. One of the most obvious design flaws is the fact Windows 2000 and XP store Lan manager (LM) hashes locally and by default transmit them for domain authentication. LM hashes are ridiculously easy to capture and crack. A single machine infected by a trojan can grab the entire organization's domain passwords and send them off to some blind e-mail drop. Then there is the oh so excellent Windows Scripting Host which provides shell access VB and JScript files with the correct extension. Ever wonder why do you see so many files named something like naughtygirl.jpg.vbs? By default Windows hides file extensions. Most users aren't aware of this and will only see naughtygirl.jpg in Explorer.

There is the oh so wonderful Windows messenger service. It might be useful in corporate environments but there's no need for 98% of the Windows user base to have it running. There's then the lovely XML RPC service. There's no reason for a desktop system to run this service by default. It serves no purpose for day to day usage of Windows. Unfortunately some other services rely on the RPC service so it need to remain enabled. This is a horrible design descision. To exacerbate the problem with the RPC service Windows 2000/XP Professional and Home editions ship with the firewall disabled as part of the default configuration. The ActiveX environment is another poorly conceived design. ActiveX controls are downloaded and run with a high level of trust as part of the default configuration in Windows. ActiveX controls have the same access privilages as the user that executes it which means a control can destroy or steal anything you can read or write. On Windows 9x/ME this is especially troublesome because there's no access controls to prevent borking up system files or other users data.

Windows XP Home and Pro give the first user Admin access with only a single password. The Win32 API also hasn't been updated to be entirely compatible with NT's authentication system. A program needing to write to the Registry isn't allowed to when run as a non-Admin user. Older versions of LView need to be run in compatibility mode by non-Admin users just to start. LView makes a Registry write every time it loads to make sure it handles graphic files (if you set it to). On OSX there's a system level Preferences folder and a user level one. They can both be read by any user in order to set global properties but then a user can customize their configuration without needing admin access. The system frameworks handle this distinction which means even Carbon apps designed primarily for use in OS8 and 9 work with OSX's permission model. Users can also install applications in their home directories and run them without needing admin privilages.

In short Windows security model despite the real and truly secure aspects - ACLs, NTLMv2, file system level encryption, stateful firewall - really sucks. A file can be deemed executable by appending .exe or .com to the end of the name. Needless services run without any default firewall configuration on desktop installations. Lan Manager stores poorly encrypted password hashes on the system by default. Windows Scripting Host provides direct shell access from inside of HTML documents.

Windows is severely hampered by the design of DOS which it has had to remain relatively compatible with. The FAT file system is simplistic and allows for limited meta data storage. The extension and thus file type had to be put in the name of the file in DOS. That has lead to the current ability to have a file be executable just by appending .exe to the file name! With OSX and even 9 and before the executable flag had to be set in the file's resource fork. Even a CLI apps in OSX needs the execute bit set. Neither of these can be done by simply downloading a program. A file system preserving archive format like StuffIt or tar (gzip, bz2) in order to put an executable file on a Mac.

The design of Windows is at fault in all of those cases. Problems in specific implementations of certain functions will always happen because no code is perfect. Bugs can lead to security vulnerabilities. With Windows however the inherent design of huge swaths of the OS are just plainly insecure and practically begging to be exploited. The design of WSH led to the spread of the ILOVEYOU worm. WSH allowed the bug to spread simply from users reading an HTML e-mail. Mozilla and Mail both have scripting for HTML e-mail disabled by default. Apple took the security of MacOS to an entirely different level from 9 to X. OS9's security model was decent but really only shortened the rope you could hang yourself with. OSX was designed from the ground up to work with the Unix permission model as well as the MacOS permission model (resource forks et al). By design OSX is much safer and secure than Windows. I feel nervous anytime I see someone with Windows XP plugged directly into their cable modem. Windows Xp is the abanadoned house crack den of the internet.

[dodo_nutter]

As everyone (almost) has said, PCs are cheaper to buy. Its a simple concept and a fact. the price difference can be huge or minimal but i personally don't mind spending that extra for a Mac.

Im 18 and have used macs all my life and i mean ALL my life...first one was an old SE/30 which was a great little thing and its still running today and is great at what it does. I only started using PCs about 5 years ago and i remember sitting waiting for the floppy i just stuck in a PC at school to pop up on the desktop. since then i have worked in a couple of IT departments and so i have had a lot of experience working with PCs as well as Macs. I (my family) has collected 7 macs over the years and not once has a single thing gone wrong with them. This G4 iMac Im on at the moment has crashed 3 times in its life time (1+ year old?) and each time i restarted and everything was fine. My nextdoor neighbors have had 2 PCs in 3 years and there first one blue screened and had to be reformatted and reinstalled twice in 6 months and this was just because it crashed. Im always going round to fix things and its the same with my girlfriend.

Yes this is a rant but its my personal experience. Having used Macs and PCs for years i can say that OS X is better, much much better, than Windose (pick a year). This is why i am willing to spend close to �2000 on a PB and not go for the cheaper option. even as a student to whom money is to be worshiped above all else i dont mine the fact that Macs are more expensive...there just sooooooooo much nicer to use on a day to day basis

Try not to Flame me too much pls! just adding my thoughts.

[Commodus]

In my experience it IS possible to custom-build an x86 box which is stable and free of adware/viruses/worms and the like, but it's something that requires a fair amount of experience in both choosing hardware and configuring software.

That's alright if you're experienced, but Jane or John Casual User typically isn't very experienced. I've dealt with people who even have trouble finding the system clock on the taskbar. These people will buy the $399 PC that uses substandard components, and then wonder why they have to send it in for service so often or why they have to buy a few extra items (an adware remover, antivirus software, a firewall program or router, etc.) just to use their computer the way they expected to.

For them, spending the extra money to get an eMac, iMac, or iBook would be worthwhile. Apple's main problems are that these people are either unaware that the alternative exists in the first place, as well as what the real cost of that cheap box will be in 1-2 years' time.

Don't get me wrong: Apple still ought to cut prices a bit if they can, but not without sacrificing quality.

[olePigeon]

I'm the only one that mentioned, and everyone seemed to miss that point, that Apple's R&D is distributed differently than Dell or Gateway. Apple spends money and resources on developing actual hardware; motherboards, chipsets, even have their hand in the design of the CPU. Apple builds almost everything in their computers from the ground up. They manufacture a LOT of their own components. On top of that they also spend a substantial amount of money in just the design of the computer.

Dell and Gateway's R&D is mostly spent on marketing. 95% of their equipment comes from 3rd party companies. They're quite litterally just resellers of other companies' equipment, then put their logo on it.

Apple's computers are more expensive because Apple spends a LOT more money on developing them.

So the question of whether or not an Apple is worth the extra money, I'd say that's a resounding YES. Now the question you have to ask yourself is, are the more expensive highend PCs (the ones comparable in price and performance of a Mac) worth the extra money? Seems to me companies like AlienWare have a pretty heafty profit margin.

[Spliffdaddy]

Dude, 95% of Apple hardware is standard peecee parts.

Right down to the chips on the motherboard.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Dude, 95% of Apple hardware is standard peecee parts.

Well for example the CPU, the system controller, and the case aren't. And exactly those are the things that I wouldn't want from the PC world. I'm, perfectly happy with AGP or PC2700 DDR RAM though.

Now let's all repeat:

Apple actually innovates.
Apple has a higher cost in developing Macs than PC makers.
Apple's build quality is in general higher.
Mac OS X runs only on Macs.
Those that value these things enough will pay more for a Mac.
Those that don't won't. They're stuck with the cheap PC.

It's everybody's own free decision. People who really want pain and suffering should be allowed to have it. The others will gladly take a Mac and enjoy life.

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I'm the only one that mentioned, and everyone seemed to miss that point, that Apple's R&D is distributed differently than Dell or Gateway. Apple spends money and resources on developing actual hardware; motherboards, chipsets, even have their hand in the design of the CPU. Apple builds almost everything in their computers from the ground up. They manufacture a LOT of their own components. On top of that they also spend a substantial amount of money in just the design of the computer.

Dell and Gateway's R&D is mostly spent on marketing. 95% of their equipment comes from 3rd party companies. They're quite litterally just resellers of other companies' equipment, then put their logo on it.

Apple's computers are more expensive because Apple spends a LOT more money on developing them.

I think this is more of a "economies of scale" thing. Apple could spend the same as Asus on designing a motherboard. But, if 1,000 people buy the Asus and only 100 buy the Apple the Asus should be cheaper. The cost of parts could be the same, but probably not since Asus would buy in bulk they would get cut a deal. Also the R&D would get spread around.

One motherboard manufacturer doesn't handover the blueprint to their competition. Both companies must do some R&D. I worked for a maker of Hard Drives and Seagate never sent us their secret plans for manufacturing Hard Drives.

Just becuase the original makers of equipment sell to a assembler the R&D cost don't vanish. They just spread around.

Software is different story. What about the huge margin on hardware? If they are marking computers up 25% why do they only make 50 million
on sales of a billion+. Do they factor in software to the margins?

When Apple's profit is greater then 25% of total revenue we can bitch about price. I would personally prefer Apple to tuck away some rainy day cash. It's nice to think my favorite company could keep on running for ten years while bleeding cash. Linux should be ready by then.

sorry for the drunk rant.