Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cmunson

Video: PC v. Mac - Apples to Apples Comparison

Recommended Posts

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

And neither do all-in-ones or mini computers.

 

The Dell I linked to is a little over 18 pounds. It's not your typical notebook computer, as you'll find when reading the customer reviews. It's not identical to an iMac by any means, but it's only a few pounds lighter than a 20" iMac. And it costs a lot more than a regular boxy desktop computer. That is the point.

 

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.

I'm sure you're right.

moreover, if they would allow installation of osx on a custom computers then their os market share would skyrocket.

I don't think this is something they're planning on anytime soon.

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.

 

If Apple could do this and survive and flourish, I see no problem with it. But I've heard a lot of debate about why this isn't a good idea . . . so I'm ambivalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly, you proved the point. the "boxy" computer is cheaper and it makes up, by far, the largest portion of computers out there. that's the point....

 

 

microsoft did it and flourished. no further comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly, you proved the point. the "boxy" computer is cheaper and it makes up, by far, the largest portion of computers out there. that's the point....

microsoft did it and flourished. no further comment.

 

Well, we're in total agreement on this. I have said earlier that no doubt Mac users would love it if Apple came out with boxes (or their version thereof), but so far they haven't.

 

When I brought up the notion that all-in-ones and mini computers cost more (whether they be Mac or PC) dark41 scoffed at the idea in this post. (In particular, I think, the iMacs.) And of course I'm still waiting for him to find me a $300 mini PC that is 2" x 6.5" and has comparable specs to a Mac Mini. (Because of course according to him, all Macs are twice the price of their PC counterparts, and the Mini sells for $600.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we're in total agreement on this. I have said earlier that no doubt Mac users would love it if Apple came out with boxes (or their version thereof), but so far they haven't.

 

When I brought up the notion that all-in-ones and mini computers cost more (whether they be Mac or PC) dark41 scoffed at the idea in this post. (In particular, I think, the iMacs.) And of course I'm still waiting for him to find me a $300 mini PC that is 2" x 6.5" and has comparable specs to a Mac Mini. (Because of course according to him, all Macs are twice the price of their PC counterparts, and the Mini sells for $600.)

 

I did better than scoff at it. I showed you where the Apple mini is about 2/3 the price of the iMac. And the basic iMac is roughly 1/2 the price of the Mac Pro (with the same 20" screen). Instead of admitting you're wrong, you changed the subject to the bare bones kits, and said they're not the same thing. You were wrong then about minis being more expensive and you're still wrong now.

 

To many of us the cubes are exactly the same thing as a mini, including the marketing departments of these manufacturers. Whether you put it together yourself or choose to buy it complete, they're cheaper than the Apple mini and cheaper than a full size PC, not more expensive as you suggest. In order to find a mini cheaper than the Mac mini, it needs to be less than $950. I have no idea where you get $300 from. Apparently your math is no better than your reading comprehension.

 

Your theory that an all-in-one injection molded case costs more than a metal or aluminum stand alone is total hogwash. I worked in injection molding for 17 years as a shift supervisor and plant manager. I'd estimate the cost for an iMac case to be around $10-$15 for parts and machine time. We did monitor casings that were very similar in size and shape for less than that.

 

Laptops/notebooks aren't the same components as any of the above mentioned systems. On top of that, the Dell notebook isn't exactly a new concept. I've got a 3 year old 19" Clevo with 3.0GHz desktop CPU and 9700 Radeon GPU that was also marketed as a "portable" rather than a notebook as it's too heavy to lug around much. Almost every manufacturer has something similar, but they aren't typically big sellers.

Edited by dark41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we're in total agreement on this. I have said earlier that no doubt Mac users would love it if Apple came out with boxes (or their version thereof), but so far they haven't.

 

When I brought up the notion that all-in-ones and mini computers cost more (whether they be Mac or PC) dark41 scoffed at the idea in this post. (In particular, I think, the iMacs.) And of course I'm still waiting for him to find me a $300 mini PC that is 2" x 6.5" and has comparable specs to a Mac Mini. (Because of course according to him, all Macs are twice the price of their PC counterparts, and the Mini sells for $600.)

 

http://minipc.aopen.com/Global/spec.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did better than scoff at it. I showed you where the Apple mini is about 2/3 the price of the iMac. And the basic iMac is roughly 1/2 the price of the Mac Pro (with the same 20" screen). Instead of admitting you're wrong, you changed the subject to the bare bones kits, and said they're not the same thing. You were wrong then about minis being more expensive and you're still wrong now.

That wasn't the question I asked, or the point I was making. Dealing with you is like dealing with a slippery eel—you slip and slide around, evade the question and change the subject, and then act outraged when I want to bring it back to my original point.

 

Here's my original comment:

Comparing a big bulky boxy PC to a sleek all-in-one iMac isn't really a fair comparison. Nor is comparing a heavy boxy PC to a tiny Mac Mini. People pay more for all-in-ones and teensy miniaturized computers, whether they be Mac or PC.

dark41 scoffed at this: So I responded with this challenge:

Tell you what. Find me an all-in-one PC (all-in-one—monitor attached to the body of the computer, in what would be described as an "elegant" space-saving design) Find me one that costs the same as their more bulky counterparts while having the equivalent power.

 

I said that all-in-ones and small form factor (miniature) computers cost more, whether they be Mac or PC. Am I wrong? Show me where I'm wrong.

You can find the original posts on this page.

 

I asked whether PC manufacturers charged the same for all-in-ones and mini PCs as they did for full size boxy PCs. Do they or don't they? I don't think anyone else here believes that they do. So if other PC manufacturers charge more if the form factor is unique, why can't Apple? I'm not saying whether or not an Apple machine will the the same price as a PC (might be more expensive, might not) but the question is: Do you compare a boxy PC to a unique/small form factor computer and act as if the cost of the form factor is inconsquential? No, you do not.

 

I also have asked you to find me a mini PC that was half the price of a Mac Mini, but had similar specs. (Since you claim that all Macs are twice the price of their PC counterparts.)

 

You found me a cube (does a cube have dimensions close to 2" x 6.5" square like a Mac Mini is? I don't know) and you found it being sold unassembled. How is that "comparable" to a fully assembled Mac Mini that is 2" by 6.5" square?

 

So in other words, you find some bogus comparison, claim victory, and then act like I'm unreasonable because I won't accept it. Well, it was bogus. In no way are unasssembled machines comparable to fully assumbled ones. If you seriously believe that they are, then you should start giving your customers (who ordered a fully assembled PC) an unassembled kit, and tell them that there's no difference.

 

To many of us the cubes are exactly the same thing as a mini,

It would depend on the dimensions. Does the "cube" look like this? That looks a heck of a lot bulkier than a Mac Mini.

 

Whether you put it together yourself or choose to buy it complete, they're cheaper than the Apple mini and cheaper than a full size PC, not more expensive as you suggest.

So find me one with almost identical specs to a Mac Mini that is oh so much cheaper.

In order to find a mini cheaper than the Mac mini, it needs to be less than $950. I have no idea where you get $300 from. Apparently your math is no better than your reading comprehension.

And your reading comprehension is sub-par. Dude, they're $600 in the USA. That's why I often wrote "$600 US" or "$600 in the USA." Apple is a US company and they do sell a lot of products over here—in US DOLLARS. So, since you frequently claim that Apple computers are "twice the price for a slower machine," find me a $300 (US DOLLARS) mini PC (2" x 6.5" square, not some bigger "cube") fully assembled. It should have the most recent, full-featured OS (Vista Ultimate) not a watered down version, since Mac OS X is not a watered-down version. And while you're at it, find one that is faster than the Mac Mini. Then that would prove your frequent claim that "Macs are twice the price and not as fast."

 

Your theory that an all-in-one injection molded case costs more than a metal or aluminum stand alone is total hogwash. I worked in injection molding for 17 years as a shift supervisor and plant manager. I'd estimate the cost for an iMac case to be around $10-$15 for parts and machine time. We did monitor casings that were very similar in size and shape for less than that.

But yet HP and other PC manufacturers charge more for their space saving all-in-ones! Why is that?

 

I asked you before: Does you company sell all-in-ones? Space saving/small footprint all-in-ones? How much do you sell them for?

 

Also note that I mentioned "space saving" in regards to an all-in-one, pretty much from the start. I bring up this detail because you are notorious for ignoring details or evading. We're not talking about a HUGE all-in-one, but one that is maybe 18-22 pounds with monitor included.

 

"Space saving" implies that some serious design is going on to cram all those parts in there. So, do space saving/small footprint all-in-ones go for the same price as their bigger boxier counterparts?

 

Do Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Gateway, Sony . . . do any of these popular computer manfacturers price small footprint or space saving computers (whether they be all-in-ones or not) the same as the bigger ones?

 

Laptops/notebooks aren't the same components as any of the above mentioned systems. On top of that, the Dell notebook isn't exactly a new concept. I've got a 3 year old 19" Clevo with 3.0GHz desktop CPU and 9700 Radeon GPU that was also marketed as a "portable" rather than a notebook as it's too heavy to lug around much. Almost every manufacturer has something similar, but they aren't typically big sellers.

 

And are they exactly the same price as boxy PCs? Dell's certainly wasn't. Is it acceptable for Dell to charge more for such a machine, but not Apple?

 

Bruce: Interesting machines. I've seen some other mini PCs too. They look intriguing, but so far I'm not finding anything close to the Mac Mini for $300! ;)

Edited by elvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple PC Minis are overrated.

 

That may be true. I'm just looking to find a Mini PC that is equal the specs or faster for $300 (US DOLLARS) and is around 2" x 6.5" square.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to pay a premium for small size, so I doubt you could even get a low end PC in that form factor for $300.

 

The cheapest Apple Mini is $500, and it's not even that powerful.

Edited by brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to pay a premium for small size, so I doubt you could even get a low end PC in that form factor for $300.

Exactly. Precisely.

 

The cheapest Apple Mini is $500, and it's not even that powerful.

 

The first G4 Minis in 2005 were $500 US, now they're $600 for Intel Core Duos. It wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility if an Intel Core Duo Mini PC (same dimensions and specs as Mini, and with Vista Ultimate) could be found for less than $600. But would it be half the price and faster? Unlikely. Edited by elvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was one with a Core Solo that's $500. Not sure if it is made anymore though.

 

They don't sell the Core Solo anymore. Cheapest Mini is an Intel Core Duo, 1.66 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 60 GB HDD, wireless, DVD/CDRW, USB 2, firewire, GMA 950 graphics. Mac OS X Tiger, 2" x 6.5" square.

 

Could you find a Mini PC with almost identical specs (and with Vista Ultimate) for cheaper? I won't say no, though I haven't checked. Also, companies like Shuttle offer all sorts of great configurations for Mini PCs. Sounds like they're a great company. But I don't see them offering anything equivalent to the Mini (including, of course, Vista Ultimate) for $300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista Ultimate is too damn expensive as it is, and so is OSX. Of course, OSX is more reasonable, but both are expensive.

 

Linux is free, and knowing that, I can build one similar to the Apple Mini for about that price. It won't be the same form factor, but it can have the same hardware, or at the very least, comparable hardware.

Edited by brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista Ultimate is too damn expensive as it is, and so is OSX. Of course, OSX is more reasonable, but both are expensive.

I won't argue with you on that.

 

Linux is free, and knowing that, I can build one similar to the Apple Mini for about that price. It won't be the same form factor, but it can have the same hardware.

 

But without the Windows operating system, it won't appeal to a lot of customers. But I understand what you're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OSX doesn't appeal to a lot of users either. Appeal is beside the point when making a comparison as such.

 

Personally, I think OSX is one of the best OSes I have ever used, but appeal isn't a part of my comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OSX doesn't appeal to a lot of users either. Appeal is beside the point when making a comparison as such.

But I'm getting back to my original question to dark41: Find me a mini PC (I specificed the most recent version of Windows) that is half the price of the Mac Mini. (And of course it must be comparable in dimensions and hardware specs.)

 

Personally, I think OSX is one of the best OSes I have ever used, but appeal isn't a part of my comparison.

 

Fair enough, but a Windows (Vista) vs. OS X machine was part of my criteria all along, and that's what I'm sticking with here. I doubt that the vast majority of consumers are using Linux at this point. (Note to dark41: I said VAST MAJORITY, I didn't say "a few" or "some.") Edited by elvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, well, the posts were getting so long, that I didn't bother to read them. :lol:

 

Pardon my ignorance on the subject.

 

I'm not arguing with you on this—if you want to make a comparison about Linux vs. PC or OS X, that's a different matter. I was talking about Windows machines vs. OS X machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, i've read some of this discussion and see that both sides have valid, though not the most common sense, reasons for choosing a windows based machine or Mac.

 

I personally am a PC user right now and I'm on the fence as to what my next purchase will be. I'll give my reasons why i would choose a mac and reasons why i would choose a PC because it seems that those questions haven't really be given impartial thought. I'm a semi hardware guy but i'll leave it to just look feel and compatibility with what i want.

 

--Mac's

- has nice graphical interface

- wonderul video rendering for people doing it for school or money (doesn't really apply to me)

- some included software such as garage band which i'd be interested in playing guitar

- Not many virus's or threats (that i know of)

- very nice asthetics, not important for performane but important for me to an extent

- low compatibility with some software because of the lack of Mac versions but, parallel boot of windows XP can run many of the programs that PC's can run. (i've heard recently or soon they will have a graphics drive to render graphcis similar to PC's for games?)

- I do know that the desktops (mac pro) have memory expandible to 16gig and video card capacity of 4 running at a time. attractive for upgrading as you go

 

--PC

- Nice graphical interface (not much experience with vista)

- very nice video rendering but i would say below Mac's (not a huge deal to me)

- some included software, mostly stuff that is office related which is very helpful for work.

- antivirus usually included with spyware and firewall

- high compatibilty with most things on the market, except for programs for Macs

- great gamming computers, high graphics and fast speed

- expandible memory usually to 4 to 8 gig and up to several TB's with usually 2 graphics cards

 

 

In comparison, I really think that either would be a rational choice as long as you accept and enjoy what you get when you spend your money. The obvious chocie, in my opinion, for games would be PC. High compatibility with most of the games on the market if you meet the hardware requirements. The obvious choice if you are a graphics and photo enthusiast, in my opinion, would be a mac. Having said that, I think that both machines can do just fine with either and all the areas listed above. If the user has a preference for either Pc or Mac then the price isn't a factor. They both do the same things but they each have their advantages and disadvantages. The price isn't an issue if you are satisfied with your purchase and preference. So a bare bones pc cost less and a standark Mac cost more. That doesn't automatically mean that the person who has no idea how to use XP will buy it because it's less expensive nor does it mean that a guy wanting to do video will by a Mac. They will go with whatever they feel will fit them the best and the needs and comfort they want in a computer. Cost isn't that important if you are comparing what each machine can do.

 

It comes down to buying what you want and like.

 

BTW the video was very badly done. I was hoping for some actual comparison such as compatability and features. Not cost. Cost is the worst thing to use to compare. Quality of use is what should be taken into consideration.

Edited by adidal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photoshop is on both the Apple PC, and regular PCs. They're both equally suited for graphical work.

 

Also, Windows has many high quality video editing software available to it.

 

The only reason to buy a Mac now is for the design, and OSX, and possibly iLife.

 

Edit: http://www.topdrawerdownloads.com/download/101767 Seems like there's a decent alternative to Garageband now.

Edited by brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photoshop is on both the Apple PC, and regular PCs. They're both equally suited for graphical work.

 

Also, Windows has many high quality video editing software available to it.

 

The only reason to buy a Mac now is for the design, and OSX, and possibly iLife.

 

Edit: http://www.topdrawerdownloads.com/download/101767 Seems like there's a decent alternative to Garageband now.

 

yep garage band is included. I did mention towards the end that they can both to everything. I don't doubt Windows machines can do video well. I've played with a couple macs and compared render time compared to windows and the quality that came out. I'd pick Mac everytime until a windows machine proved me wrong. The same thing goes for video games, I'd pick a Windows machine over a Mac everytime because of it's high compatability.

 

I've used photoshop on a Windows machine, it runs just fine. I actually have photoshop on my old labtop. I've also seen it on my friends Mac, the rendering and display looks much better. As I said before, they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post, adidal.

 

There are plenty of video programs for the PC, but right now Final Cut Studio stands out as being an affordable package for video pros. So it is one of the industry standards. (Avid being #1, I think.) For an average consumer, they could go with a number of cheaper Windows editors, or do great stuff with either iMovie, Final Cut Express, or a few other Mac video editors. (I know mostly Final Cut and iMovie.)

 

I will not say that Windows won't render as well as Macs—that's not my call to make. All I know is that a while ago I had a Mac and PC with similar (won't say exact) specs. The PC had what I believe were superior specs but yet it was painful watching it render video—I just ended up transferring files over to my Mac to render. Edited to add: But I am not going to get into some debate over whether Macs or PCs render video better. It could go either way as far as I'm concerned. All I know is that I am more than satisfied with how my Mac renders video in Final Cut Pro.

 

The only reason to buy a Mac now is for the design, and OSX, and possibly iLife.

And Final Cut Pro/Express, Logic, Logic Express (I am trying to learn Logic Express—wish me luck!) and other Mac-only apps.

 

Edit: http://www.topdrawerdownloads.com/download/101767 Seems like there's a decent alternative to Garageband now.

 

Yes, it is very nice, but I don't think it has the software keyboard? (I used that a LOT, though admittedly it's not something everyone is going to use.) It says it imports JamPack loops, but I could not get them to import into their loop browser. (Perhaps I'm not doing it right.) And it comes with a LOT less loops than Garageband.

 

The strength of Garageband (and why adidal might want to consider it) is that it "integrates" nicely with Logic Express (the next step up for composers/musicians) and in fact, was made by the same guy who did Logic. (You can open Garageband files in Logic and edit them further.) Also, there are some wonderful Garagaband "communities" out there which are great to join. (I'm not a great musician/composer, but they have been great for me.) Also there seems to be more what I'd call "mainstream" support for the application and more of a commuity spirit. Not to say that there aren't such groups for Windows apps, but all I'm saying that is if Garageband is appealing to you, then Mixcraft (as nice as it is) won't give you the same experience at all.

Edited by elvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of video programs for the PC, but right now Final Cut Studio stands out as being an affordable package for video pros. So it is one of the industry standards. (Avid being #1, I think.) For an average consumer, they could go with a number of cheaper Windows editors, or do great stuff with either iMovie, Final Cut Express, or a few other Mac video editors. (I know mostly Final Cut and iMovie.)

 

Is there such a thing? What makes a Mac so special that there is software that will only run on a Mac? Now, if you bought one for software that is OSX only, that still falls within one of the two reasons to buy a Mac. The design, and OSX. ;)

Edited by brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there such a thing? What makes a Mac so special that there is software that will only run on a Mac? Now, if you bought one for software that is OSX only, that still falls within one of the two reasons to buy a Mac. The design, and OSX.

 

 

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. They pick a mac because of the OS? Wouldn't that make that the same reason why people would by Windows? I mean in a sense they prefer windows and all the perks of it so they buy it. People prefer the design of a Mac and OSX, so they buy it.

 

Not sure if I understood that correctly. That's my dumbed down attempted at seeing if I'm accurate in understanding your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You understood it perfectly.

 

People prefer the design of a Mac and OSX, so they buy it.

There are no reasons to buy a Mac, other than the design, and OSX.

Edited by brandon

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...