Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cmunson

Video: PC v. Mac - Apples to Apples Comparison

Recommended Posts

I mentioned Win2k in an earlier post in this thread. I think it is the best MS OS release to date, however, it could use some improvements, like an operating system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hey, its your money. Spend it as you like. :-)

 

Thanks. We will. :)

 

One thing that these Mac / PC price comparisons fail to take into account is that the Mac form factor brings up the price. And yes, you can criticize Apple for not making more generic beige box type Macs (which would invariably be cheaper). I won't argue with you when you say that Apple misses out because they don't make cheaper Macs in generic boxes. No doubt many of us Mac users would snatch them up if they were made available. I guess making those kinds of machines is not something that interests Apple at the moment.

 

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.

 

However, I won't be looking up prices of hardware and making long tedious lists of hardware prices. The PCs may end up being cheaper the Macs, or they may not. I doubt that the price difference is hugely different either way. But even if the PC is cheaper, it'll still not have the same "value" as a Mac for those of us who prefer the Mac OS and Mac-exclusive apps. (And again, let's dispel that myth about PCs being able to run Mac OS X. Not easily they don't. Not legally they don't. Mac OS X on a PC is definitely not an option for the average computer user.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning!

I couldn't help sharing an early morning office incident with you fellow readers...

One of my two colleagues in the office is using an up to date PC (less than 5 months old) with windows XP, while me and the third colleague use G5s with OSX. We all use Adobe CS3 and CorelDraw 12 on the PC (please note that the PC user uses Photoshop CS2 because Photoshop CS3 really slows down the PC and caused more than a lot of hung ups)...

Well, a few moments ago the PC user started swearing because his PC suddenly freezed losing all the work he did from the morning boot (about half an hour's Photoshop work)...

Now, my other (third) colleague is merely a PC user and anything but a computer freak. She's been using the Mac just over a year, while she has more than 15 years of experience working with PCs. So, she turns to our PC colleague and says: "What'd you expect? With the PCs you can never be sure. You should save every other click you make!"... :rofl2::rofl2: Repeat: she's working just over a year on a Mac while she has a 15 year experience with PCs...

 

Have a nice (problem-free) day!

 

I don't see what this has to do with the PC vs Mac debate. This is a software glitch that has nothing to do with the PC itself. It could have just as easily happened on a Mac since it was Photoshop that froze. FWIW, my wife has used Photoshop 5 days/week for the past 5 years and her PC and has never had a problem with it. She's used all versions since Photoshop was released.

 

Even if the PC was purchased yesterday, it most likely has out-dated hardware in it. Bundled systems are cheap because they use cheap components, many of which are no longer being manufactured. Offices tend to buy bundled PCs to save money. Go figure. A good IT tech should know the difference and understand the value up uptime.

 

Buyer beware. Most retailers are now selling Vista systems with 512mb RAM, even though MS themselves recommend 1gig of RAM, and most people in the know recommend 2gigs RAM. If a buyer doesn't research a system before they buy, they get what they deserve. There are more crap PC systems sold every day than Apple systems. All that proves is that there are a bunch of consumers who don't know the difference between a good PC and a bad one.

 

I've been in the PC business for 7 years, worked with PCs for roughly 28 years, and used most OS's as well as Apple systems. My first system was a 5 1/4" x 5 1/4" read/write diskette system. My preference is still the PC anyday, for both performance and price. To each their own. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. We will. :)

 

One thing that these Mac / PC price comparisons fail to take into account is that the Mac form factor brings up the price. And yes, you can criticize Apple for not making more generic beige box type Macs (which would invariably be cheaper). I won't argue with you when you say that Apple misses out because they don't make cheaper Macs in generic boxes. No doubt many of us Mac users would snatch them up if they were made available. I guess making those kinds of machines is not something that interests Apple at the moment.

 

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.

 

However, I won't be looking up prices of hardware and making long tedious lists of hardware prices. The PCs may end up being cheaper the Macs, or they may not. I doubt that the price difference is hugely different either way. But even if the PC is cheaper, it'll still not have the same "value" as a Mac for those of us who prefer the Mac OS and Mac-exclusive apps. (And again, let's dispel that myth about PCs being able to run Mac OS X. Not easily they don't. Not legally they don't. Mac OS X on a PC is definitely not an option for the average computer user.)

 

You think the Apple cases cost more?? Now that's a good one. Its actually a few injection molded pieces of plastic, which are cheaper to make than a metal mid-tower case, let alone an aluminum case. But you pick the Mac that your want to compare and I'll show a PC for half the price which will perform faster and be much more versatile.

 

I can put our system into a desktop case (which is almost exactly the same thing when you place the monitor on top of it), or "bulky" mid-tower case, whatever you prefer, and all for the same price. Aluminum cases will cost from $100-200 more. The differences are that a bigger case will have good ventilation and can be hidden away. The iMac ventilation is terrible and will always be on your desk.

 

You think the iMac is sleek. I still laugh everytime I see it. To each their own.

 

Minis and micros are a completely different story. Yes, some people will pay more for a mini or micro and have less features. Having said that, not 1 of our customers has asked for a mini or micro.

 

I just showed you that the price difference is $1700-$1950AUD so you wouldn't have to look up computer component prices. Its easy to find all these components online for anyone who cares to build their own system. In fact, you can buy 2 of our systems for the price of 1 iMac with the same components. And you can trust me on this or not, but every single component is cheaper in the USA than it is in Australia. Our system in the USA would be sold between $1000-$1200.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less if OS X will run on a PC because I'm quite happy with XP Pro and it's stability, features, limitless applications and games, etc.. I've used OS X. While it does what it does pretty well, its too limited for what we do every day. OS X is designed to run with the few hardware configurations of Apple systems. If it had to recognise and use all the various hardware that various PCs use, OS X would have the same growing pains that Windows did. :-)

Edited by dark41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think the Apple cases cost more?? Now that's a good one. Its actually a few injection molded pieces of plastic, which are cheaper to make than a metal mid-tower case, let alone an aluminum case. But you pick the Mac that your want to compare and I'll show a PC for half the price which will perform faster and be much more versatile.

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 think the iMac is sleek. I still laugh everytime I see it. To each their own.

Then the all-in-one PCs are probably something you laugh at too. To each their own.

 

Having said that, not 1 of our customers has asked for a mini or micro.

It doesn't mean there isn't a market for them. There obviously is. PC makers produce them too.

 

I just showed you that the price difference is $1700-$1950AUD so you wouldn't have to look up computer component prices.

No offense, really . . . but words really cannot fully describe how little I care to see another idiotic list of hardware prices. Thanks anyway.

Its easy to find all these components online for anyone who cares to build their own system.

I don't. Grandma doesn't either. A lot of people don't.

In fact, you can buy 2 of our systems for the price of 1 iMac with the same components.

Would an equally equipped all-in-one PC (from a big name company) with all the same components as an iMac sell for half the price of an iMac? Show me where. Maybe they're cheaper (maybe they're not) but I find it hard to believe that a nicely made all-in-one is half the price of an iMac.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less if OS X will run on a PC because I'm quite happy with XP Pro and it's stability, features, limitless applications and games, etc..

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah—I wouldn't dream of talking you out of using a PC, then. Whatever you like.

 

The thing is, these tedious lists of hardware specs are not really getting to the heart of the matter when the machine won't run OS X well. If OS X is what we want (and we do) then even if a PC is half the price, it's still not something we want. It won't do what we want. If it does for you, that's great. You spend your money on what you want. We'll spend it on what we want. We're all happy. No one's being sold a bridge. And all the mind-numbingly tedious lists of hardware prices won't change that.

If it had to recognise and use all the various hardware that various PCs use, OS X would have the same growing pains that Windows did. :-)

 

Yeah, but it doesn't. It doesn't. And we're not unhappy about that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What'd you expect? With the PCs you can never be sure. You should save every other click you make!"...

Funny,this describes my last experience with a mac. When I was in college in journalism class, we had all macs in the journalism lab. The professor told us to stop using them during class because he got annoyed by the noise they all made when we had to reboot because of locking up.

 

Of course, that was 12 years ago. In those 12 years I haven't had the same issue with Windows, no matter which version of windows or whatever hardware I've used since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I happen to have a mini computer right here that we used as a server for 3 years. It's an AMS e-Cube EG65.

http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/Computer-Sy...be-EG65-Review/

It was every bit as powerful as a full sized system at the time except for the graphics card, which wasn't essential for a server. The reason we bought it was that it different and cheap, cheaper than building a full sized system from scratch (We paid $350AUD for it at the time and invested another $400 for the hard drive, CPU, RAM, and vid card). It would have cost us $1000AUD to build a similar full size system from scratch. It performed flawlessly, being rebooted about once a month for 3 years. So yes, you're wrong.

 

Minis/cubes can be found most anywhere online in bare bones kits for less than $350. They should still be well under what it would cost to build a full size system, and much less than half the price of any Mac. They're fairly popular at LAN parties. If they weren't powerful, gamers wouldn't be caught dead with them. ;)

 

Then the all-in-one PCs are probably something you laugh at too. To each their own.

It doesn't mean there isn't a market for them. There obviously is. PC makers produce them too...

That's correct. I like very much that all I see on my desk is my monitor. I don't want it cluttered with anything else. The market for all-in-one systems isn't big enough for me to care about either.

 

No offense, really . . . but words really cannot fully describe how little I care to see another idiotic list of hardware prices. Thanks anyway.

You may not care about price, but 99% of our customers care about price above everything else. That's the market that I care to tap into, and we'll gladly accomodate the 1% for whom money is no object as well, with PCs.

 

Would an equally equipped all-in-one PC (from a big name company) with all the same components as an iMac sell for half the price of an iMac? Show me where. Maybe they're cheaper (maybe they're not) but I find it hard to believe that a nicely made all-in-one is half the price of an iMac.

I have no idea and don't care. I have never had a customer ask us for an all-in-one, and I certainly wouldn't buy one from another manufacturer for myself or to pass on to our customers. I'd likely google the subject and refer the customer to the manufacturer as that's not the niche we're interested in. But how many people shop for a computer with all-in-one being an important aspect? I have yet to meet someone like this. Sure, guys like you are out there, but not enough of them for our business to cater to.

 

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah—I wouldn't dream of talking you out of using a PC, then. Whatever you like.

You couldn't if you tried. I've owned Macs in addition to my PCs and can access one anytime I need to. Can't say that I've ever needed to though. My PC is exactly what I want, each and every time I build it, until something better comes along. This is exactly what I can't do with a Mac and the biggest reason I wouldn't own one as my primary computer. But that's just me.

 

The thing is, these tedious lists of hardware specs are not really getting to the heart of the matter when the machine won't run OS X well. If OS X is what we want (and we do) then even if a PC is half the price, it's still not something we want. It won't do what we want. If it does for you, that's great. You spend your money on what you want. We'll spend it on what we want. We're all happy. No one's being sold a bridge. And all the mind-numbingly tedious lists of hardware prices won't change that.

If you think this is a bigger problem than drivers, you're kidding yourself. Each year Apple adopts more and more hardware and software that runs on PCs. Apple has also started making some of their software work with Windows. Why? Because Apple knows that if they want to increase their market share they have to appeal to the 92% of users who haven't bought their products in the past. One of the main reasons that 92% of people don't buy Apple systems is that they won't do everything a PC does. Another reason is price. You're correct in that the list of hardware on a PC is still way too big for OS X to run on any given PC. But just like Microsoft has done with Windows, Linux has done, Unix has done, Linspire has done, and just like every 3rd party manufacturer who wants a piece of that pie has done, I expect that eventually Apple will add drivers to work with common PC hardware and make it legal to run OS X on a PC. Because its now illegal to run OS X on a computer, hardware manufacturers won't be in any hurry to make drivers for their components with OS X, nor should they be expected to. But this is nothing more than a driver issue, which is all under Apple's control because that's how Apple wants it for the time being.

 

And for the record, your "we", who want to run OS X on a PC is a small enough number of people right now that Apple doesn't care to accomodate them. I haven't had a single customer ask me if they could run OS X on one of our systems. It not a big topic in the world. In fact, most reviews about Safari (which Apple just made legally available for PCs) are less than impressive. It's just another web browser, much like any Apple computer is just another computer. I suspect Apple would lose market share rather than gain it if and when they make OS X available for PCs because its just another operating system. All the hype from Apple users would be out there for everyone to see and test, only to find out it's not any better than the present alternatives. As OS X becomes more complex to handle the variety of drivers needed for PCs, it'll become as fragile or even moreso than any Windows OS. It's probably in Apple's best interest to keep it on the limited hardware supplied by Apple.

 

Yeah, but it doesn't. It doesn't. And we're not unhappy about that. :)

 

 

And as long as it doesn't, Apple will never have a substantial market share. While the 8-9% of Mac owners may be happy about that, many of the 91-92% of us that own PCs are not happy about that, as competition drives technology forward and prices down. It's too bad that at this point Apple doesn't provide any real competition. But then that's why 92% of the computer users in the world don't own Macs. For price and performance, Apple is not competitive with PCs. As hard as this fact is for Apple fans to digest, it remains the truth.

 

None of this is to say you can't easily buy a PC from Dell, HP, or Gateway that costs as much as a Mac and performs worse, because you surely can. How many things in life would you spend $1000-$4000 on without researching first? Yet PCs are bought every day with no research at all. You don't have time to research it? Umm.. you can't afford not to spend the time researching it when your system being down is the alternative.

 

As I stated before, I have little sympathy for someone who buys a PC from Walmart for $800 and then has problems with it. I have even less sympathy for someone who spends 4 times that amount on a Mac and then finds out it won't run their favorite accounting program or game. But we'll get their business eventually, so it all works. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Apple certainly has a hell of a lot more "market share" then your company :lol:

 

I guess they are doing something better then you are :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned Win2k in an earlier post in this thread. I think it is the best MS OS release to date, however, it could use some improvements, like an operating system.

 

I have no idea what you just said. :huh:

 

I found W2K to be the most stable and fastest OS Microsoft has made to date. I still run it on my file sharing server and never need to reboot it. What doesn't/didn't it do for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you just said. :huh:

 

I found W2K to be the most stable and fastest OS Microsoft has made to date. I still run it on my file sharing server and never need to reboot it. What doesn't/didn't it do for you?

 

I forgot to add a y. I meant to say like ANY operating system, it has its flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Apple certainly has a hell of a lot more "market share" then your company :lol:

 

I guess they are doing something better then you are :P

 

Ah, and the forum comedian finds the need to chime in to another topic which he can't add anything useful to.

 

I think you meant "than" instead of then?

 

And I guess I'm supposed to be offended?

 

Try and follow the thread topic Bruce. Since our systems will beat any Mac in benchmarks and real time comparisons, I don't think Apple has a thing on us. I've already stated that we have no desire to go public nor compete with Apple or the big 3. We don't manufacture components and never will, so we can't really be compared to Apple. We're just picky about what components we use, which is similar to Apple, except that we have many more choices.

 

What we do is make mid 6 figures per year with a family owned and run business, and we're quite happy as things are. More importantly, we've had 1 return for warranty in 7 years (a graphics card which was replaced in house within 2 hours). I don't think Apple can say that. Thus, our customer base is very loyal and provides more word of mouth advertising than we care to deal with.

 

By the time I'm your age Bruce, I'll have retirement properties in 3 countries and be flying a learjet to each of them depending upon my mood for the day, instead of posting on forums about things that I don't know and trying to insult people who are more successful than I am.

 

For now, I'm quite happy to spend my spare time adding my real life experience to forums for others to learn from or disregard at their disgression. You should try that some time. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to add a y. I meant to say like ANY operating system, it has its flaws.

 

Ah.. gotcha. I'm still waiting on SP7. Doh! And I totally agree. The perfect OS has yet to be built. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No your not supposed to be offended.

 

It was not meant to be offensive, just factual.

 

You know that old confusing the issue with facts thing and all. :mrgreen:

 

I too can build a system cheaper the Apple, and in fact I can build them cheaper then you.

 

Of course because parts are cheaper here. :P

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No your not supposed to be offended.

 

It was not meant to be offensive, just factual.

 

You know that old confusing the issue with facts thing and all. :mrgreen:

 

I too can build a system cheaper the Apple, and in fact I can build them cheaper then you.

 

Of course because parts are cheaper here. :P

 

Well I don't agree with your fact as I have no desire to be another Steve Jobs. I'm on track to retire wealthy at 55.

 

Prices are all relative to the cost of living in any given area. I'm assuming you buy retail. I have the luxury of buying wholesale. The prices really can't be compared.

 

But if you want to compare... Your minimum wage is like $7.00/hr? Ours is $15/hr. The AUD is currently 0.87297 of the USD. Being a USA citizen and Australia permanent resident, and traveling back and forth constantly since I still have family there, I can assure you that cost of living is much better in AU than it is currently in the USA. It's good to be an aussie wanna-be. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so proud of you. :P

 

Can I be your friend :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a place for people with standards :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth? The UBB code is not working for coding. :angry:

 

dark41 wrote:

I happen to have a mini computer right here that we used as a server for 3 years. It's an AMS e-Cube EG65.

 

It was every bit as powerful as a full sized system at the time except for the graphics card, which wasn't essential for a server.

 

So in other words it wasn't equivalent to the many mini computers (Mac or PC) currently being sold on the market.

 

The reason we bought it was that it different and cheap, cheaper than building a full sized system from scratch (We paid $350AUD for it at the time and invested another $400 for the hard drive, CPU, RAM, and vid card).

 

So in other words, after you were done upgrading it, it wasn't half the price of a Mac Mini or similarly priced mini PC on the market.

 

It would have cost us $1000AUD to build a similar full size system from scratch. It performed flawlessly, being rebooted about once a month for 3 years. So yes, you're wrong.

 

Wrong about what? That mini computers (Mac or PC) cost more than similarly powered and configured boxy desktops? You in no way have established that this is not the case.

 

Minis/cubes can be found most anywhere online in bare bones kits for less than $350.

 

Is a "kit" which you must assemble yourself comparable to an already assembled and ready-to-go computer? No.

 

My contention was that mini computers (and all-in-ones) whether they be Mac or PC, cost more. I certainly didn't mean kits or computers that you have to put money into upgrading. I meant a computer that was ready-to-go, so that Grandma could open the box and get on the Internet. Are there any current miniature offerings of this type that are the same price as their bulkier counterparts, but have identical power? And, where is a mini PC (not a kit or barebones, but ready for Grandma to use) that is half the price of a Mac Mini? Half the price, but with the same power? You claim that PCs are half the price of Macs, but you've got to make that comparison accurate. Because Minis and all-in-ones cost more.

 

The market for all-in-one systems isn't big enough for me to care about either.

 

But that's not really the point. There may be no interest for you in all-in-ones, but there is for some people. Which is why manufacterers like Dell sell them. And yes, Dell's all-in-one costs more than a similarly configured box.

 

You may not care about price, but 99% of our customers care about price above everything else. That's the market that I care to tap into, and we'll gladly accomodate the 1% for whom money is no object as well, with PCs.

 

Everyone cares about price, but we have NO INTEREST in paying for a machine that we don't want to use. Doesn't run iLife? Doesn't run OS X? Doesn't run the other Pro Apps? Why on earth would we want it? An etch-a-sketch is cheaper too, and very nice for what it does, but it also does not do what we want it to do. Clue: No one pays for something they don't want and won't use. Being told, "But it's cheaper!" doesn't suddenly make them want it.

 

I have never had a customer ask us for an all-in-one, and I certainly wouldn't buy one from another manufacturer for myself or to pass on to our customers.

 

Doesn't change the fact that all-in-ones cost more than similarly configured boxy desktops.

 

But how many people shop for a computer with all-in-one being an important aspect?

 

I don't know, all I know is that all-in-ones cost more than similarly configured boxy desktops.

 

All I was trying to say is that all-in-ones cost more than boxy desktops. If a person gets an all-in-one, they pay more. Comparing an all-in-one by Dell, for example, with a cheaper, bigger, clunkier box and saying, "Look at this horribly expensive all-in-one from Dell! They're overcharging! Look how much cheaper I can get my big heavy box for!" will likely get a response like, "Yeah, well . . . it's an all-in-one, they cost more."

 

I already said that it's too bad that Apple isn't in the market to make cheaper budget boxes, but the fact is, they don't. They make an all-in-one iMac. And all-in-ones cost more, whether they be Mac or PC.

 

This is exactly what I can't do with a Mac and the biggest reason I wouldn't own one as my primary computer. But that's just me.

 

Yeah, everyone has different needs. You have yours, and that's fine. Mac users have theirs, and that's fine. No one is being sold a bridge.

 

Apple has also started making some of their software work with Windows.

 

iTunes and Safari. The Safari choice was because it ties in with iPhone. I don't anticipate that they'll be releasing a Windows version of Logic or Final Cut Pro anytime soon. They give no indication that they will—in fact, seem quite determined to not ever release Windows versions. (They dropped the Windows version of Logic when they bought it.)

 

Of course, things can change over time, but there's simply no indication that they intend to cater to Windows with all their software.

 

One of the main reasons that 92% of people don't buy Apple systems is that they won't do everything a PC does.

 

What can't grandma do on a Mac that she does on a PC? Let's be realistic here.

 

Grandma gets on the Internet and sends emails to her grandkids. Grandma reads web pages. Grandma looks at pictures that the grandkids sent her. Grandma plays home movies that the kids emailed her. Grandma opens up Word or another word processor and types out a few documents. Grandma maybe hooks up the digitial camera or camcorder and does a little light photo editing or work with video. Grandma does not play World of Warcraft. (Is there a Mac version? Don't know and don't care.) But if there is some PC-only program that Grandma needs to run, Grandma boots over into Windows and runs it.

 

What can Grandma not do?

 

And let's stick with Grandma, not Joe Q Geek who likes to rip apart his PC and put it back together again. Because there are far, far more Grandmas out there than Joe Q Geeks.

 

But just like Microsoft has done with Windows, Linux has done, Unix has done, Linspire has done, and just like every 3rd party manufacturer who wants a piece of that pie has done, I expect that eventually Apple will add drivers to work with common PC hardware and make it legal to run OS X on a PC.

 

I'm not holding my breath, and we don't know. They sure don't act like they are supporting it now. Not just ignoring OS X on Windows, but they are not supporting it. I am led to believe that the Apple "updates" that every Mac user downloads without fear often contain something that thwarts the OSX-on-PC-users. Which is why those who have an illicit copy of OS X on their PC have to be so careful before they install updates. It very well might "break" their copy of OS X.

 

And for the record, your "we", who want to run OS X on a PC is a small enough number of people right now that Apple doesn't care to accomodate them.

 

Apple is actively discouraging them.

 

I haven't had a single customer ask me if they could run OS X on one of our systems.

 

Of course not. Because it's illegal. And mostly only geeks even know it's possible anyway. And because Apple actively discourages it. And because it doesn't work all that well. Because Apple actively discourages it.

 

I suspect Apple would lose market share rather than gain it if and when they make OS X available for PCs because its just another operating system.

 

They won't be releasing OS X for PCs anytime soon. And you may "suspect" all you want, but it's just your opinion.

 

All the hype from Apple users would be out there for everyone to see and test, only to find out it's not any better than the present alternatives.

 

That's not the word I hear from some "switchers" I know. Sure, now and then someone won't be impressed, but a lot of switchers are thrilled.

 

For price and performance, Apple is not competitive with PCs. As hard as this fact is for Apple fans to digest, it remains the truth.

 

But yet professionals continue to buy and use Apple machines to run Final Cut, Logic, and so forth. Apple seems happy with the niche they've carved out.

 

I have even less sympathy for someone who spends 4 times that amount on a Mac and then finds out it won't run their favorite accounting program or game.

 

Except with Bootcamp, they can. :)

 

Edited to add: Why should anyone feel sorry for someone for getting what they WANT? They want iLife. They get it. They want Final Cut. They get it. They want OS X. They get it. It's none of your business what they paid for it—they wanted it, they got it, they're happy.

Edited by elvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?? So when Vista first came out and I had nothing but Microsoft software on the computer, and I got errors and a BSOD it was because of Tom Richard and Harry? :lol: Funny for some strange reason I assumed it was because of the "Microsoft" software and OS :P

 

I'd wager that you Sir never actually used Vista in a PC before, because any able minded individual knows that it (along with any other Windows product) doesn't produce a BSOD unless you have something wrong with the hardware, or you have some driver conflict surrounding a piece of hardware. I suppose it’s possible for the OS to suffer corruption in its registry or in a software program, but this can happen to any OS when you look at 1’s and 0’s on a hard drive. So I’m guessing you had problems properly upgrading your existing machine and/or installing proper drivers to meet the OS requirements if your story is true. :rolleyes:

As for Vista ... I don't even support or recommend it to my clients (yet) until they address and fix all the problems people are complaining about. That usually takes one or two service packs. Even so, the first PC I was recently instructed to load Vista onto (by a customer, against my advice) didn't display a single problem other than typical sleep/wake issues that many have already reported, and this was a three generation old socket754 Athlon system!

FYI- The first service pack is supposed to be released soon from what I understand, and then I will be taking a second look.

As for my experience with Mac’s, I had to deal with my fill of them in one or two classes at college. The professor there was a real big Apple nut (or would that be seed?). I swore if I had to look at that stupid stopwatch (while the machine stayed frozen half the time), or try to work an idiotic single button mouse one more time I was going to scream and damage some school property. What a joke. I ended up doing most of my work at home on my (much faster) Windows PC anyway. Politics be damned.

For more than 13 years, from Ver-3.1 to present day, I have only witnessed a handful of BSOD’s lighting up a monitor screen from Windows, and none of them (if I recall) have ever come from software errors alone. Therefore, you have a weak argument in my opinion. And did you just conveniently overlook the issue about a "rush to market" deadline I mentioned, or are you just insistent on spinning FUD. :snooze:

Enough said. This argument is old and crusty. Have fun beating your heads against a wall. With Robber-Barron Intel chips under the hood of an Apple, it’s only a matter of language on a hard disk now anyway.

BTW- Richard was used because the name D i c k was not allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd wager that you Sir never actually used Vista in a PC before,

Enough said.

 

 

It's a good thing you didn't bet money because You sir would have lost that wager.

 

However I do find it amusing that you say it doesn't happen, then go on to say you won't use it or recommend it, until they fix it :rofl3:

 

http://itsyourpc.org/55402/index.html

 

http://itsyourpc.org/55402/58931.html

 

http://itsyourpc.org/55402/56131.html

 

http://itsyourpc.org/55402/59031.html

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So in other words it wasn't equivalent to the many mini computers (Mac or PC) currently being sold on the market.....

 

So in other words, after you were done upgrading it, it wasn't half the price of a Mac Mini or similarly priced mini PC on the market....

There are no other words. This e-cube is just as powerful as any iMac with the video card that's in it. It would need a better video card to compare to our basic PC system, but then that's much more powerful than any Apple system.

 

Your original point was that minis cost more than full sized PCs. That's wrong. The Mac Mini is $949AUD + GST. The cheapest iMac is $1549AUD. The cheapest Mac Pro is $3999AUD. All of this blows your theory out of the water.

 

http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/...OSAA00000018626

 

I showed that this e-cube cost $300 less to build than a similar full size system from scratch, or the Mac mini, and is still less than half the price of the cheapest iMac (both the Mac mini and cheapest iMac have lesser components).

 

Is a "kit" which you must assemble yourself comparable to an already assembled and ready-to-go computer? No.

You asked about minis. I showed you a mini and now you complain it's not comparable. I think it is comparable. My 13 year old daughter built this mini from the included instructions, so I believe Gramma can assemble it herself in all of 20 minutes as well, with the help of her reading glasses and a phillips screwdriver (in case the thumb screws are too tight for her). Anyone who can change a lightbulb can assemble a bare bones kit.

 

Then there's my friend Bruce here. I believe Bruce would take exception to someone saying he couldn't put a bare bones kit together. Or maybe you think grammas are less capable than grampas? :)

 

While there may be more grammas in the world than joe geeks, there are definitely more joe geeks using computers than grammas. Most of the older generation doesn't have a need for a computer. Then there are those that do. My own mother (who's an 70 yr old gramma with 13 grandchildren and much less than geeky) has installed BIOS updates, service packs, added a DVD-RW to her computer, and has 3 different printers running for different reasons. She set up her entire HP system by herself and modifies it to her liking every few months (probably out of boredom more than necessity). She also blows it out with compressed air every 6 months (stupid cats) and has had to figure out which wire/cable she pulled off in the process more than once. I think you seriously underestimate the competency of grammas in general.

 

However, I believe that you Elvers are better off letting Apple do all your thinking for you. There's no point in continuing this discussion since you don't even know what a bare bones kit is as opposed to an upgrade, and can't seem to grasp the idea that you've been proven wrong as far as pricing is concerned. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I showed that this e-cube cost $300 less to build than a similar full size system from scratch, or the Mac mini, and is still less than half the price of the cheapest iMac (both the Mac mini and cheapest iMac have lesser components).

What part of "equivalent" don't you understand?

 

No, Dell does not sell kits. Gateway does not expect you to put together their PCs from a flippin' kit. Do you think there's a reason for that? Because a lot of people don't want kits. Kits are not the norm. You can't compare do-it-yourself kits to ready-to-go computers.

 

You asked about minis. I showed you a mini and now you complain it's not comparable.

Kits are NOT COMPARABLE to ready-to-go items. Not in any universe.

 

I think it is comparable.

You can continue to think that, but if there is no difference, then why aren't all things sold as kits? Why aren't all of Dell's computers sold as kits? Apparently there's no difference! Absolutely none! Let's all go to kits then!

 

Give me a break! Talk about trying to sell a bridge . . .

 

Let's rephrase this so it's really, really specific.

 

There are several big name PC manufacturers in the US. Dell. Gateway. Sony. Acer. HP.

 

Okay. Name me a miniature PC from Dell, Gateway, Sony, Acer or HP that has the identical (or near identical) hardware to a Mac Mini, and find it for me at half the price of a Mac Mini.

 

Also keep in mind that the Mac Mini is 2 inches tall and 6.5 inches square, and with an Intel Core Duo processor, etc. etc. You can look at thte hardware specs of the Mac Mini here.

 

And by "comparable" or "equivalent" I mean, one of these big, well known brands (since Apple is a well-known name, not some fly-by-night mom-and-pop outfit) and I mean it's got to not be a lot bigger or heavier, it's got to have equal quality parts, it's got to have the high end version of Windows (Vista Ultimate) not some cheap budget watered-down version. (Mac OS does not have a watered-down version, after all.) And most importantly, you shouldn't have to assemble it in order to get it to work. Because you don't have to assemble the Mac Mini in order to get it to work.

 

While you're at it, find me an all-in-one PC from Dell, Gateway, Sony, Acer or HP that is the same price as a bigger, heavier box sold by Dell, Gateway, Sony, Acer or HP. Prove to me that producing an all-in-one costs the same as making a bigger, heavier generic box. Show me where Dell, Gateway, Sony, Acer or HP have done it.

 

While there may be more grammas in the world than joe geeks, there are definitely more joe geeks using computers than grammas.

But seriously, how many people tear apart their computers and put them back together? Most of the computer shops I go into (local shops, places like Best Buy or Comp USA) have a service for upgrading RAM, adding hard drive, or doing simple maintainance like cleaning off the hard drive and reinistalling Windows. Why do they offer these services if everyone out there knows how to tear apart their computers and put them together again? Let's face it, the majority of computer users—young and old—are not big geeks who want to do that. Most just want to get their email, look at pictures, and do other basic tasks. If that weren't the case, computer repair businesses would have very little purpose in life.

 

I think you seriously underestimate the competency of grammas in general.

I think you seriously overestimate the computer literacy of the general public. I can't tell you how many times I've asked a person (of any age) what kind of computer they have (meaning, CPU, RAM, HDD etc.) and they give me a blank look.

 

However, I believe that you Elvers are better off letting Apple do all your thinking for you.

Well, I certainly don't want you doing the thinking. You'll be trying to sell me a bridge. You'll be trying to convince me that do-it-yourself kits are the same as fully assembled items.

 

There's no point in continuing this discussion since you don't even know what a bare bones kit is as opposed to an upgrade

You had to add more to make your kit usable, or did I misunderstand? Perhaps "upgrade" is not the right term, but you said this:

 

(We paid $350AUD for it at the time and invested another $400 for the hard drive, CPU, RAM, and vid card).

You paid a total of $750 AUD for a computer which you had to put together. The kit didn't have the hard drive, RAM and video card, so you paid for those.

 

can look, and can't seem to grasp the idea that you've been proven wrong as far as pricing is concerned. :)

 

You're trying to weasel out of a straight question about pricing by throwing in things like do-it-yourself kits, when the reality is that most computer users don't buy their computers that way, and when they do, they do it to save money. Saying that a "kit" that must be assembled is no different than a fully assembled computer, ready to go out of the box is a nonsense. Don't be disinegenous. Edited by elvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, another thing I forgot to ask in the last post:

 

Since you believe that computer kits and ready-made computers are comparable, does the company you work for sell kits? If so, how many models do they sell as kits? Would they consider changing all their computers over to kits rather than selling fully assembled models? After all, according to you kits are comparable to assembled computers, and anyone can put them together.

 

Also, would your company consider mailing a customer a do-it-yourself kit (with easy-to-follow instructions that apparently grandma can follow) when the customer ordered a fully assembled computer? If not, why not? After all, they are comparable (according to you), so the customer should not have any problem with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...