Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cmunson

Video: PC v. Mac - Apples to Apples Comparison

Recommended Posts

it would take apple a day to fix that, but they don't in order to keep fleecing the money from your pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and it's been established, over and over and over again, that OSX can sometimes run pretty crappy on a non-Mac PC. It's not a solution for ordinary consumers, and requires specific hardware for "best compatibility." Compatibility issues are not a concern when installing Windows on an Intel-based Mac.

 

Yes they are. Apple PCs use EFI, which Windows does not support, so Windows won't work on an Apple PC, unless boot camp is installed. That is a compatibility problem.

 

Windows also needs certain drivers for Apple PCs, which is again, a compatibility problem.

 

The same goes for OSx86. You install it, it needs drivers.

 

And, if it's just as easy as installing OSx86 on a non Apple PC, except for possibly needing drivers, then it is a solution, albeit, an illegal one.

Edited by brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see, that's the greatest irony here. people buying apple pc's so they don't feel like they're getting fleeced from microsoft...but they don't understand that apple is fleecing them by charging one hell of a premium for hardware...

 

i understand not everyone buys apple in order to avoid ms, but some do.

Edited by badbinary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

Although, I've not once gotten fleeced by Windows, nor Apple, because the copies of Windows & OSX I have, I downloaded. I will never get fleeced by Linux, because I have never had to pay for any copies I downloaded, and it is perfectly legal.

 

There are only three reasons people would buy a Mac that I can think of anymore.

 

1. Fanboyism

 

2. OSX

 

3. The design

Edited by brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark41 makes his bread off of a custom PC company, I can kinda see why he would be rather biased.

Biased, I understand. We're all biased. But what he is doing goes waaaaay beyond that. It's almost as if he privately thinks that every Apple purchase is taking bread out of his children's mouths, or something. I mean, can't he just accept the existence of a competing product? Come on! I'm sure most vendors are able to suck it up and at least pretend to act marginally gracious when they encounter people who are probably not destined to be potential customers.

 

And this really goes beyond his business. It is just common courtesy. If I were a Classical musician, I wouldn't be rude to those who loved rock music, even though I knew that they'd probably never buy any of my CDs or go to my concerts. What exactly would be the point in doing that? Would I think that they'd all of a sudden start loving Beethoven, because I was snide and condescending to them?

 

People prefer Windows because it is what drives the market, and is what people are used to. People prefer OSX, and the thousands of Linux distros because they are more secure than Windows, more versatile than Windows, and cost a lot less than Windows (Linux is free, OSX is $129, and can be installed on up to 5 PCs)

 

So, PCs give you plenty of choice, and so do Apple PCs.

 

I have no argument with any of this.

 

Yes they are. Apple PCs use EFI, which Windows does not support, so Windows won't work on an Apple PC, unless boot camp is installed. That is a compatibility problem.

Bootcamp is the solution. Compatibility does not become an issue after Bootcamp. Apple's site does not tell Mac users, "Even with Bootcamp, you've still got to pick just certain types of Intel Macs for best compatibility." (As if compatibility is not a done deal.) All Intel Macs are compatible. No need to select just the right hardware and cross your fingers and hope it'll be compatible.

 

Windows also needs certain drivers for Apple PCs, which is again, a compatibility problem.

I believe that Bootcamp provided all those drivers? It seemed to do so for me when I installed it, anyway.

 

And, if it's just as easy as installing OSx86 on a non Apple PC,

The information I've gotten on the OSx86 site and message board in no way indicates to me that installing OSx86 is as easy as installing OSX on a Mac. Installing Windows on an Intel-based Mac via Bootcamp sounds a heck of a lot less of a hassle than installing OSx86 on a non-Mac PC. And yes, the illegality of OSx86 is also a significant issue. A lot of average consumers would not be comfortable with that.

 

But, with that said, OSx86 does sound rather fascinating. Just definitely not for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only three reasons people would buy a Mac that I can think of anymore.

 

1. Fanboyism

 

2. OSX

 

3. The design

 

Other reasons would be:

 

4. Mac only apps (Final Cut Pro, Logic, and to a lesser extent iLife. Some people love Garageband to death, for instance). Final Cut is a must-have for some video editors and film students.

 

5. Fascination with other systems/wants access to all systems. (This is partly what got me started. It was different from Windows and I was curious. I am slow to take on Linux, but it's next in the queue.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, though, you end up spending 500 bucks more for the hardware.

 

Legality (and honesty) is important to a lot of people, and so they'll pay the price to stay legal. I own my copies of Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and now Final Cut Studio. I just feel guilty if I don't, but admit to downloading software to try it out before I buy it. (I do wish Apple would have more trial versions of their software available. That is a criticism I have.)

 

And the cost of the hardware isn't germaine to the point I was making—which is that OSx86, while fascinating, has its complications and hassles.

 

But, if someone wants to save the money, doesn't have a problem with the illegality, and is capable of dealing with any complications that may arise, then I can see why OSx86 would appeal. But it's not a solution for everyone.

Edited by elvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant this: Windows is not compatible at all with Apple PCs, unless you install Bootcamp, due to EFI not being supported. I know the drivers & everything are provided, but I just wanted to scrape the barrel.

Edited by brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see, that's the greatest irony here. people buying apple pc's so they don't feel like they're getting fleeced from microsoft...but they don't understand that apple is fleecing them by charging one hell of a premium for hardware...

 

i understand not everyone buys apple in order to avoid ms, but some do.

 

Unlike many of the PC makers who are struggling or now completely gone because they choose to lower prices so much that they thought sustaining losses would benefit them, Apple chooses to sell their product for a price that they know will make them money.

 

As for being fleeced from Microsoft goes, well I just don't believe it because if you choose to do it, and the choice is yours then there is no fleecing at all. Just stupidity.

 

I am not saying people who use MS products are stupid. I am saying the ones who use MS products and think they are being "fleeced" are stupid. Because if a person thinks the company is crooked, and is fleecing them, and they continue to purchase those products then there is only one conclusion that can be made. STUPID!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elvers,

I stopped replying directly to you because you've failed to understand what I've said from the start. Rather than get frustrated because I can't seem to word things in a way that you'll understand, I'd rather just avoid the pointless arguments.

 

My 1st post in this thread stated that I'm all for competition, as competition drives technology forward and prices down. Nothing has changed in my opinion. It doesn't matter to me if my opinion isn't shared by you or anyone else. But your replys tend to get off track and not address the reasons for my opinions. Thus, my opinions remain unchanged.

 

I've used and even owned a couple of Apple systems. (Stated more than once.) They didn't impress me as being special, but they performed as well as the average PC of a couple years ago. Its perfectly fine that they impress you for whatever reasons.

 

You don't want hardware lists, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you even know what they are. But unless you do, you can't possibly know what a good PC is capable of.

 

I see nothing more stable about OS X than Windows, other than the fact that Windows has to run heaps more hardware and software than OS X does. The only issues I've ever had with Windows 2000 Pro or XP (Pro and Home) are hardware related, and usually fixed quickly with a driver update. Vista is a different story, as many 3rd party manufacturers aren't in any hurry to write good drivers for Vista. I've said repeatedly that I'd expect OS X to undergo the same growing pains Windows did if and when Apple ever decides to include all the hardware that Windows already does. If Windows only used a few variations of hardware, it would be much easier for Microsoft to fine tune it to them. But Microsoft has always stuck to software and left the hardware to 3rd party manufacturers (with very few exceptions, keyboard, mice, Zune, etc.). Thus the PC user has the choice between AMD and Intel, DDR or DDR2 or DDR3, RAID 0,1, 0+1, 5, 10 (and everything in between), SATA or SATA2 or NCQ, etc., etc.. And that's just a brief and very incomplete summary of the hardware options that are available on PC but not Apple.

 

No one is saying you need to use these features. But some of us do. Some of us also feel that because we have the option to, PCs are a better choice. I find it hard to comprehend how providing less options equals a more expensive machine. Because people like you are happy with their systems as is, that's great for people like you and Apple.

 

I don't see OS X as more secure than Windows either. I think exploits have always been aimed for the most part at Microsoft because of their market share. Since viruses are almost extinct, having been replaced by spyware and adware designed to put money in the pockets of the exploiters, it makes sense to go after the biggest number of machines online. Every time Apple puts out a claim that their OS is more secure, someone proves them wrong. Case in point, last week an exploit was found exploited and quickly patched in Apple's Quicktime. That vulnerability has been there since day one. It's naive to think there aren't more where that came from.

 

Apple Releases Security Updates for QuickTime

Original release date: July 12, 2007

Last revised: --

Source: US-CERT

Systems Affected

Apple QuickTime on systems running

* Apple Mac OS X

* Microsoft Windows

 

As long as Apple's market share stays low and they don't do too much bragging about their security, they'll be left alone for the most part. Linux is more secure, but definitely not for your gramma either.

 

Ipods are a hit/miss situation on a PC, while they run quite well on Apple OS's for the most part. For 2 years in a row we've been swamped with business after Christmas resolving issues with iPods on PCs. I love Apple! But to use an Ipod you have to use Itunes (unless you're geeky enough to know how to get around it, but I guarantee your gramma isn't.) By contrast, I've used a Creative Zen Nomad Jukebox (60 gigs) for about 4 years now and never had a problem with it or what I can run on it because of DRM.

 

I've read for years from Apple users how Microsoft users are being fleeced by Microsoft to use their products. That remark always strikes me as hypocritical since Apple does the exact same thing and even moreso. Ithis, Ithat, only works with iMachine. Windows gets sued in Europe for installing WMP on their systems. Where are the law suits for Apple controlling which applications work on their systems? Is it because Apple doesn't have enough market share for people to care about, or is this just a double standard? I don't really care either way. I just call them as I see them.

 

Bottom line is that I'm not anti-Apple. I just think they've fallen behind in technology and wish they'd get with the program. I don't see Apple as competitive at this time. If they were, people wouldn't be forced to pay $400AUD for Windows Office 2007 Pro. No one wishes Apple were more competitive than I.

 

I feel the same way about AMD. (No, I don't really want to get BB started.) /me shuts up now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike many of the PC makers who are struggling or now completely gone because they choose to lower prices so much that they thought sustaining losses would benefit them, Apple chooses to sell their product for a price that they know will make them money.

The main reason most PC makers have to lower their costs so much is that competition is extremely strong. There's a mom & pop shop around just about every corner. The big 3 are selling very cheap systems because they buy components at bulk so they can make a profit at a lesser price. Still, the big 3 have a problem in that they get greedy by using ads to generate more profit, and they put a couple nice components (CPU and DVD burner) in with a few unreliable but cheap components (SiS chipsets, cheap 533 RAM, etc.).

 

By contrast, an Apple reseller has to sell at the price that Apple dictates to them, and the reseller "discount" is almost non-existent. Thus, there aren't many Apple resellers around by comparison.

 

But I suspect things are going to be very different in the not so distant future. There's a generation of computer savvy kids on the way. They know the difference between a good motherboard and a bad one. They know how to overclock a cheaper CPU to make it competitive with a more expensive CPU and get the most for their money. When this generation gets too busy or wealthy enough to quit building their own systems I suspect the big 3 will have serious problems maintaining market share. Mom and pop shops who stay current with technology should do well.

 

Mom and pop shops need a specific niche to remain competitive today. Of course a better warranty and good service is also priceless. :)

Edited by dark41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, the stupid UBB is messing up again. I swear, I understand the concept of using the quote tag, and have done it a lot of times. Only this forum and another seem to have this intermittent problem.

 

Elvers,

I stopped replying directly to you because you've failed to understand what I've said from the start.

 

A lot of your statements I had no quarrel with.

 

I focused on "can't justify" and no "good reason" because you have failed to elaborate what you mean by them. You still aren't directly explaining them.

 

My 1st post in this thread stated that I'm all for competition, as competition drives technology forward and prices down. Nothing has changed in my opinion. It doesn't matter to me if my opinion isn't shared by you or anyone else. But your replys tend to get off track and not address the reasons for my opinions. Thus, my opinions remain unchanged.

 

Your opinions are your own—you have every right to not prefer Apples, and have every right to find fault with them. I'm not trying to dissuade you from that. It's not at all unusual for many users to not find enough merit in Macs—just like it's not unusual for users to not find enough merit in Windows-based PCs.

 

I've used and even owned a couple of Apple systems. (Stated more than once.)

 

Yes, I recall you saying that. It still doesn't explain the comments about "can't justify" and no "good reason."

 

They didn't impress me as being special, but they performed as well as the average PC of a couple years ago. Its perfectly fine that they impress you for whatever reasons.

 

Except that we can't "justify" their expense and we usually have no "good reason" for using them.

 

You don't want hardware lists, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you even know what they are. But unless you do, you can't possibly know what a good PC is capable of.

 

Hardware performance is not something I obsess over too much. I understand that this is your bread and butter, and I completely respect that. But a lot of us are less concerned about whether a computer is marginally faster as long as we still get our work done, and get our work done in an environment (using an application and OS) that we prefer. If someone is able to render something a few seconds faster in a system and application that we don't prefer, that's fine, but it's not going make us change our minds or all of a sudden abandon using a working environment which we prefer and feel more productive in. Of course if there is a unique situation where saving every second or minute is mission-critical, then switching platforms is something to consider. But if that's not the situation for a user, then it's simply not an issue.

 

I see nothing more stable about OS X than Windows, other than the fact that Windows has to run heaps more hardware and software than OS X does.

 

A lot of people will disagree with you about OS X's stability, but I'm not going to get into that argument. If you don't see it as more stable, then that's a perfectly good reason for you to not care to use it. That, however, does not prevent others (who believe differently and feel they have good reason to do so) from preferring something else.

 

No one is saying you need to use these features.

 

Except that (again) we have no "good reason" for preferring something else.

 

But some of us do.

 

Well of course. Find a place where I said otherwise.

 

Some of us also feel that because we have the option to, PCs are a better choice.

 

Find somewhere where I denied that some people find PCs to be a better choice.

 

I find it hard to comprehend how providing less options equals a more expensive machine.

 

Having a quarrel with pricing does not mean that no one will have no "good reason" for still selecting that product anyway. I often hear people say that their favorite food, car, clothes, etc. are "overpriced," but they also go on to say, "I just love using it and there's nothing else out there that gives me the same quality, so I'm sticking with it." They don't have to justify the money they spend on whatever they prefer to anyone else. It's the epitome of arrogant to expect anyone to justify how they spend their money—unless somehow your pocketbook is involved too. Which I don't think is the case here, with Mac users.

 

I don't see OS X as more secure than Windows either.

 

( . . . )

 

Apple Releases Security Updates for QuickTime

Original release date: July 12, 2007

Last revised: --

Source: US-CERT

Systems Affected

Apple QuickTime on systems running

* Apple Mac OS X

* Microsoft Windows

 

Isn't this a debate for another time? Why are you bringing this up now? What do you hope to accomplish? If I had made a big grand sweeping statement about how OS X is invulnerable, maybe I could see you bringing this up. But I'm far more interested in talking about whether or not Mac users have any justification in choosing their platform, and whether or not they have any "good reason" for doing so, or if they are "ignorant" for persisting in preferring it over what you consider to be a "good PC."

 

I've read for years from Apple users how Microsoft users are being fleeced by Microsoft to use their products. That remark always strikes me as hypocritical since Apple does the exact same thing and even moreso.

 

*yawn* Nothing to do what what I'm saying, nothing to do with how I feel about Microsoft vs. Apple. I don't dislike Microsoft, don't dislike Windows, you won't hear some "Micro$oft SUX" rant from me. Save this for someone else. I find the speeches about how corrupt Microsoft is to be tedious. I still buy their products.

 

Bottom line is that I'm not anti-Apple.

 

Yeah, except that anyone who chooses and Apple over a (in your opinion) much faster and cheaper PC is "ignorant," can't "justify" doing so, and it is "their loss."

 

I don't see anything here to change my views—that it's beyond your comprehension why anyone would have a good reason for preferring a Mac. You think we're ignorant for making this choice. I guess because you think that operating systems are interchangable, apps are interchangable, or that all of us should value of what a "good PC is capable of" in the same way as you do? (By that do you mean—does it run Garageband super efficiently? Can I get my Final Cut Projects done oh so much quicker?)

 

Maybe I'm wrong about you, so I'll ask these direct questions again:

 

What exactly would "justify" the cost of purchasing a Mac system? Also, bonus question: To whom do Mac users have to "justify" their purchases to, exactly?

 

What would be a "good reason" to purchase a Mac system? Would preferring the OS or some Mac only apps be a good reason? (And if so, why couldn't you say so before?)

 

Is continuing to prefer Mac OS X and Macs an ignorant choice, or not? If a user says, "I like Mac OS X, therefore I buy Macs" is this ignorant or not?

 

I know I'm dwelling on these few questions, but you continue to not answer them. You write long posts about things (many things) which I don't care to argue about (you keep your opinion, I'm fine with that), don't disagree with, or am happy to agree to disagree. I'm sticking with these questions because I really want to get some in-depth answers—answers that are not full of spin or evasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this thread is long overdue for some real time benchmarks. Office applications will see little difference on either machine as they are not resourse hungry apps. Most everyone I know burns DVDs and back up their systems. So these are the 2 benchmarks I chose to compare, as both are fairly heavy on resourses although the OS plays into them somewhat.

 

I used DVD Shrink 3.2 on 2 of our PCs (2.4GHz CPUs at stock settings) to decode and compress 2 movies for burning to single layer DVDs and saved them to hard drive. Then I took the DVDs to a good friend's house and ran the decoding and compression on his iMac (2.33Hz CPU) using Unace, also saving to hard drive. The results were so drastically different that we also installed and ran the compression on DVD Copy because they make a version for both Mac and Windows, just to make sure it wasn't the program causing the results. Lastly, we ran a benchmark with Zoolander on his 2 year old P4 3.0 (single core) just for an idea of how it compares. After running the benchmarks on his system, we ran back to my house and installed DVD Copy for Windows and finished off the tests. (All beer was consumed after testing was complete.) :b33r:

 

I shut down one of our PCs and started back up to clear the cache before running the tests. I did the same with the iMac. My PC has been running for 7 days and was not shut down prior to running the tests.

 

Note: The iMac had Norton AV installed, and we use AVG 7.5. When trying to run DVD compression on the iMac with a Norton scan running, the system almost completely stopped. We then shut down Norton completely and made sure nothing else was running in the backround during these tests. PC-2 (my PC) ran all tests with AVG running a scan with low priority in the backround. DVD Copy crashed on the iMac and both PCs with the Harry Potter DVD.

 

Results:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

PC-1 DVD Shrink = 16 mins and 22 seconds

PC-1 DVD Copy = No result

PC-2 DVD Shrink = 16 mins and 25 seconds

PC-2 DVD Copy = No result

iMac (with Unace) = 36 mins and 10 seconds

iMac (with DVD Copy) = No result

 

Zoolander

PC-1 DVD Shrink = 13 mins and 30 seconds

PC-1 DVD Copy = 13 mins and 55 seconds

PC-2 DVD Shrink = 13 mins and 45 seconds

PC-2 DVD Copy = 14 mins and 0 seconds

PC-3 DVD Shrink (3.0GHz P4) = 24 mins and 10 seconds

iMac (with Unace) = 28 mins and 28 seconds

iMac (with DVD Copy) = 26 mins and 5 seconds

 

The times for PCs are consistently twice as fast. What I didn't expect was that the 2 year old PC was also (marginally) faster than the brand new iMac with superior hardware.

 

I backed up my 291 gigs of data, software, and MP3s to my backup drive today and timed it at 1 hour and 15 mins. My friend backed up his 84gigs of data, software, and MP4s on his iMac and timed it at 1 hour and 25 mins. I then matched his 84gigs of backup on both PC-1 and PC-2. The times were the same at 21 minutes. By my math, backups were done 4x as fast on the PCs.

 

Hardware definitely comes into play on backups one (although I don't know exactly how much), as we use RAID 0 (only on the data drive on my PC and on both the OS and data drives on my wife's system) and E-SATA with NCQ hard drives. The iMac backs up to another hard drive on the same system (2x250g).

 

So either some people have a warped definition of "marginally faster", or they're ignorant as to what a good PC can do. I have to admit that although I expected the PCs to be faster, I didn't expect them to be that much faster.

 

For the record, these PCs were built for $1400AUD and would sell for $1700AUD. The iMac was just purchased from Apple Australia a month ago for $3750AUD.

 

By my math, thats a (marginal) 4x better price/performance ratio for the PC.

 

My friend uses a iMac because his business uses some Macs and he has to take much of his work home. They also paid for his system for this reason.

 

Anyway, the benchmarking was a good learning experience for both of us and we had fun doing it.

 

The only thing I was disappointed in is that screenshots wouldn't have proven much as none of these programs showed the total elapsed time. I could have used a screenshot with just my system tray clock for reference, but figured someone would accuse me of changing it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

benchmarks

WHAT IN THE . . . ?

 

I asked some PLAIN QUESTIONS. I get more evasion.

 

Again, here are the questions:

 

1. Do Mac users have to "justify" the purchase of their Macs? Bonus question: To whom do they have to their purchases to?

 

2. What is a "good reason" to purchase and prefer a Mac? Bonus question: Is there, in your mind, a "good reason" to purchase a Mac?

 

3. Are most Mac users "ignorant" for choosing Macs?

 

4. Is the statement, "I like the Mac OS, so I am using Macs" an ignorant choice or not?

 

FOUR QUESTIONS. I'm asking them again. I said before that I was focusing on these FOUR QUESTIONS because you never answer them, but instead give me evasion and spin. And here you're doing it again. My goodness—the mind reels.

 

I said that I had formed the opinion that you think Mac users have "no good reason" to use Macs, that we're "ignorant" for doing so, that it's "our loss" if we prefer Macs, and that we cannot "justify" the purchase of our Macs.

 

Do you deny this? If you do not deny this and will not EXPLAIN HOW AND WHY YOU DENY IT, or are not able to do so without evasion and spin, I'm just going to continue to believe that you are some sort of narrow-minded zealot who cannot see the forest for the trees and cannot fathom how anyone on the planet can conceivably choose something other than a Windows (or maybe Linux) based PC. Because apparently in your mind, one size fits all and that size is a Windows (or maybe Linux) based PC.

 

In summary, you have the stance that if you cannot conceive of a "good reason" to use a Mac system, then NOBODY else has any reason to either, and they are deficient and ignorant in their preference. Or another way of putting it would be: if you don't understand it, it cannot be understood.

 

By the way, I have done speed comparisons on my own PCs vs. Macs (I have had may of each over the years), and found that even if the Mac was a little weaker in hardware specs, it performed satisfactorily against the (supposedly) faster PC. I was and continue to be happy with the way that my Macs perform. My own real-world experience trumps any benchmarks made by a person who has proven, over and over and over and over and over again to be dishonest and evasive in their answers and beyond biased.

Edited by elvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elvers,

I searched back to page 6 or 7 (where I think I made my first post on this thread) for the word "ignorant" and only see you and Brandon using it. Brandon used it once in a reply to Sixten66. Sometime after that you began your rants directed at me and are the only one to use it since that I can find. I may have said it and can't find it, but if I did it would be in relation to Mac owners who think their systems are superior to today's PCs for speed, stability, security and/or dependability, not the fact that they prefer Macs.

 

For the last time, I couldn't care less who buys a Mac as we have plenty of business as is. What I care about is people who post that today's Macs are as fast, more stable, more dependable and more secure than today's PCs, as anyone who thinks so doesn't have a clue. The Intel systems that I compared to are nowhere near the fastest PCs available today, yet they pretty much buried the iMac with similar CPU on these 2 tests. I'm quite sure OS X will keep up with office programs, start-up, shut-down, and card games. :s

 

It's great that you compared PCs and Macs over the years, but how can you do a fair comparison if you don't even know the difference between various hardware as you stated yourself? I'm comparing to what is available today, and was not available until earlier this year on either platform. It appears that today Apple needs to either update OS X or some of their hardware to get comparable speeds to PCs with virtually the same CPU clock rate. None of that is to say that you should buy a PC if you're happy with your Mac.

 

I'm not going to feed your rants anymore Elvers. Find someone else to play with.

 

You're happy, I'm happy, everyone is happy. :)

Edited by dark41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the post that prompted my questions. I trimmed it to the quotes that caught my attention (but of course the original is linked to as well). Just took me a few minutes to find it. Notice the bolded parts.

 

I asked you about these comments several times and you've always ignored them. So I got more persistent. You could have easily answered them a long time ago.

 

Google it yourself if you don't believe me, or better yet, call Apple support and ask them to google it for you.

Oh burrrn. Apple does my thinking for me. :rolleyes:

But if your preference for the few Apple programs helps you justify the cost and allows you to remain a fanboy, by all means stick with what you know.

I'll ask again: Why should I have to "justify the cost"? If it's much better for me than the competition, it's a bargain.

 

I guess this is a good part of why 92% of the people in the world don't own Apple systems. Even Apple system owners can't come up with a good reason for paying double the price for a slower system other than "we like it as it is" or "I had a bad experience with a PC 10 years ago".

What would be a "good reason" to use a Mac, in your opinion?

 

(And the whole thing about "double the price" is a lot of baloney. None of my PCs of similar specs were half the price as my Macs, nor were my Macs oh so much slower.)

 

same argument can be used for every new and innovative idea in the world. "We're not changing because we like it as it is." That's called ignorance, and ignorance hampers your ability to improve. It's your loss.

 

Selecting the system and applications which you prefer (after weighing all your options) is not "ignorance." People do it all the time. You interpret it as ignorance, because (again) in your mind, one size fits all, and that size is a Windows or Linux based PC, and anyone who makes a choice that differs from yours must be "ignorant."

 

And to your recent post:

 

It's great that you compared PCs and Macs over the years, but how can you do a fair comparison if you don't even know the difference between various hardware as you stated yourself?

I am not as obessed with hardware as you are. I am more than confident that my Macs are capable of giving me adequate speed. It is not necessary for me to consider scrapping an OS and a bunch of applications that I much prefer in favor of a system and applications that I really do not want to use, for the sake of (again) a marginal speed difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I read one of your replies, I'm baffled by your poor reading comprehension. If you read my posts as they were typed, you'd know there isn't much we disagree about. When I said "if that helps you justify the cost..." I was referring to you justifying the cost to yourself, which you obviously have. You don't have to justify anything to me because I couldn't care less what you buy.

 

I've answered all these questions before and won't answer any of your posts in the future as I'm convinced you either want to argue or don't understand what you're reading.

 

I can't think of a good reason to buy a Mac at this time. I don't want one. You do, so I'm sure you have your reasons. Enough said.

 

And the prices are not baloney, unless you're calling me a liar about what we sell our systems for. I saw my friend's iMac receipt as he had to dig it up to know what his company paid for it. The prices can be confirmed through the Apple Australia website. The iMac with 20" screen starts at $2299AUD, and when all his options were added (faster CPU, extra hard drive, 2gigs memory, 256mb vid card, modem, and Applecare Protection Plan) came to $3750AUD. Check it yourself.

 

http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/...me/desktop/imac

 

If you weren't ignorant as to the price and performance of hardware components, you wouldn't have spent nearly the same amount on a Dell system with similar hardware to your iMac. But then you are. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said "if that helps you justify the cost..." I was referring to you justifying the cost to yourself, which you obviously have. You don't have to justify anything to me because I couldn't care less what you buy.

 

Yeah, except you spend time on this board giving all of us benchmarks and arguing about it and saying that we are ignorant. But you don't care that we (according to you) "spend twice as much money for something much slower." Oh no. Of course you don't. ;)

 

Listen, I won't try to change your opinions. I'm just establishing what they are. You think that if someone makes a choice that is outside of your realm of understanding, that they must be ignorant and it's their "loss" because they don't see things the same way that you do.

 

I've answered all these questions before and won't answer any of your posts in the future as I'm convinced you either want to argue or don't understand what you're reading.

No, you haven't. You have given evasion and spin, but in no way have you directly answered those questions.

 

 

I can't think of a good reason to buy a Mac at this time. I don't want one. You do, so I'm sure you have your reasons. Enough said.

This does not explain why you said "Even Apple system owners can't come up with a good reason for paying double the price for a slower system other than "we like it as it is" or "I had a bad experience with a PC 10 years ago"."

 

You weren't talking just about me, you were talking about all Apple users. So we can't come up with any good reason to pay (in your opinion) "twice the price"? So every Mac user is:

 

1. Knowingly paying twice the price (they'll disagree with the claim that Macs are always or even frequently twice the price),

 

2. Have no other reason to do so other than they "like it as it is" or that they had some bogus experience with PCs ten years ago. So there are no other reasons, is that it?

 

And the prices are not baloney, unless you're calling me a liar about what we sell our systems for.

I'm still waiting for a price quote on a 2" x 6.5" square mini PC (with an Intel Core Duo or equivalent CPU, equivalent RAM, HDD, etc, Vista Ultimate and already fully assembled) selling for $300 US. That would be half the price of what we pay for a Mac Mini in the USA. And I'm waiting for proof that PC users pay the exact same for all-in-one PCs as they do for boxy desktops.

 

You want to dismiss the form factor, but do people pay more for them or not? You have not established that they do not. So you cannot compare an all-in-one Mac to a boxy PC and say that the form factor means nothing. Or is it acceptable for people to pay more for an all-in-one or mini PC if the manufacterer is Dell or HP, but it's not acceptible when it's a Mac?

 

I'll ask you—how many 2" x 6.5" fully assembled PCs do you sell? Do they sell for exactly the same as your full size boxy desktops with identical hardware specs? How many space-saving (fully assembled) all-in-ones do you sell? Do they have the exact same price as your full size boxy desktops?

 

But, you don't have to answer any of this or continue this conversation. We don't have to argue about this any more. I'll continue to believe that you think that "one size fits all" and you can continue to believe that all Mac users are happy to pay twice the price :rolleyes: for "no good reason" for a Mac, because they refuse to see the light and appreciate how wonderful PCs (like the ones you make) are.

Edited by elvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the all-in-one is one of the main reasons why i have a poor opinion of macs. my main experience with mac was a tangerine orange imac back in 2000. monitor goes out? screwed. want to upgrade? screwed. want a second optical drive? screwed. if i want an all-in-one, i'll get a laptop with a docking station. then at lease i can take it with me when i travel. you don't see many people riding the bus with an imac on their lap.

 

bulky desktops sit to the side or underneath the desk and don't take up any desk space. you're rarely going to move it anyway, so why get something that is completely useless for stuff coming out in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the all-in-one is one of the main reasons why i have a poor opinion of macs. my main experience with mac was a tangerine orange imac back in 2000. monitor goes out? screwed. want to upgrade? screwed. want a second optical drive? screwed. if i want an all-in-one, i'll get a laptop with a docking station. then at lease i can take it with me when i travel. you don't see many people riding the bus with an imac on their lap.

 

bulky desktops sit to the side or underneath the desk and don't take up any desk space. you're rarely going to move it anyway, so why get something that is completely useless for stuff coming out in the future?

 

This may be all true (except that the current iMacs are not nearly as bulky as the CRT iMacs) but it doesn't change the fact that Dell, etc. charge more for their all-in-ones. Also, some of us like a smaller form factor. (I certainly do. I have a small form factor Dell as well.)

 

I said before that no doubt many Mac users would like it if Apple made a less expensive (and more boxy) Mac, but the fact is, they don't. Either a consumer minds it, or they don't. They will get something else if an all-in-one is a deal-breaker for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dell doesn't make an all-in-one.

 

Not only that, but Dell is pretty limited on configurations. I don't see an option to buy without McAfee and at least MS Works 8.5. All the 20" screens are wide screen too.

 

I can't match one of our systems exactly, but this is the closest I can come and still keep XP Pro.

 

Dell Dimension 9200 Core2 Duo Processor Desktop (substituted the E6600)

E-VALUE CODE : Q240744

Online Store Price

AUD 2,478.30

 

That has a couple features ours don't (software) and doesn't have a few that ours do (software and hardware). It's not exactly cheap, but still $1300AUD cheaper than a similar iMac.

Edited by dark41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dell doesn't make an all-in-one.

 

It's categorized as a laptop, but doesn't exactly fit in with the other laptops. And before you doubt that it's different from other laptops, read some of the customer reviews, like these excerpts:

 

Dell customer reviews:

 

Needed to purchase $300+ travel bag from dell, doesn't fit into any other bags. Airport personnel are inclined to play with this computer and don't believe it's a laptop.

 

***

 

Heavy, not to be carried for long distances.

 

***

 

I wouldn't really call it a notebook, it's more like a briefcase. (...) It's not something you want to carry around for a long walk. This baby is heavy.

 

***

 

Really heavy and really expensive. Might work as a portable if you bring it to the office then back home. Def not if you need to travel more than that.

 

Edited to add: I'm not going to try to compare this machine to an iMac, since there seem to be some big differences. But is it the same price as a similarly configured boxy desktop? I don't think so.

 

dark41 wrote:

 

It's not exactly cheap, but still $1300AUD cheaper than a similar iMac.

It's also not an all-in-one. It's not completely similar to an iMac if it's not an all-in-one.

 

And why the requirement for XP Pro? Vista is the current Windows OS. Tiger is the current Mac OS.

Edited by elvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

notebook computers never compare to the desktop counterparts because the components themselves are more expensive. i think that's the point.

 

for macs, your options are: macbook, macbook pro, imac, and mac pro. the cheapest true desktop computer you can buy is the mac pro at 2200 dollars, without display.

 

if apple were to offer a line of true desktops with desktop components, then i'm willing to bet they could double their market share pretty quickly. moreover, if they would allow installation of osx on a custom computers then their os market share would skyrocket. this would be great for everyone as microsoft would now be in actual competition with apple and the more mac os is used, the more software will be compiled for it. besides, competition is good for everyone, there is no downfall to it other than apple padding it's pockets with expensive computer sales. apple has already gone standard hardware, take it the next step.

 

just imagine, going to dell, gateway, hp, your local ma and pa shop, etc. and being able to choose between mac os, windows, or linux. choice is what drives the market and innovation, not short-term profit gains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...