Comments on: The truth about the costs of Macs vs. costs of PCs.

By: Meeba

Meeba — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:45:29 +0000

quote Steve from 2007: “Apple bundled software: iPhoto, iMovie HD, iDVD, Garage Band, iWeb… not to mention the best os ever OS X!”

It might be 2 years later, but Mac is still including software with it’s OS that doesn’t promote competition within the realm of Mac computing. MS has been attacked over and over for this, while Mac continues to remain untouched because of it’s low percent of product placement in homes. If Macs were a great product, they would be in the majority of homes, much like Ipods are in the hands of most portable music device owners.

You do have to admit, that even with all the problems with Windows, it still runs on most any PC with any combination of parts (much like even Linux does now with minimal normal user interaction/setup). As for Mac, they continue their stance on limiting their OS to their hardware. While many of you are willing to get up on a soapbox and talk about the quality of their OS, I will do the same in tune saying Apple limits it’s problems by limiting it’s users option to what they know it works on.

I do agree that Macs are overpriced, but I also understand the marketing reasons behind it.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:34:42 +0000

I have a Mac and I agree with Alex. People need to stop thinking that they are part of some elite club and that having a Mac makes you better or smarter than PC user. I love my Mac but I also know that it is a bit pricey. I also don’t harass my friends who use Windows because everybody has a preference to what they know and like. I have a Dell Inspiron that runs Ubuntu and only Ubuntu. My choice for getting a Dell notebook was based largely on the higher price of a Macbook. For the same price as the base Macbook I doubled my specs getting a PC. To be honest, I really like Linux. I now use AWN as my dock if people like that feature of OS X. I also set up the global menu which is nice too. Linux will only get better in time.

By: seth

seth — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:55:09 +0000

just lettin u know half of apples software is made by microsoft so its not better than windows, the same if anything.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:52:41 +0000

Alex basically shutdown all of your comments. I love Macs and planning on getting a new one soon bu they are over priced. Seriously stop denying the facts.

By: edmundo

edmundo — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:17:13 +0000

Quite simply, this article is out of date. The price fluctuations recently have created an equilibrium between the two manufacturers. Look at a midrange white Macbook and a Dell. TO equate the size, choose a new XPS M1330. The price is IDENTICAL, and the Apple has a much master processor (2.16 C2D/4MB vs. 1.5 C2D/2MB).

Buy an Apple, get better specs and Mac OS X. Done.

By: The price of apples « UbuntuCat

The price of apples « UbuntuCat — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:11:59 +0000

[...] Here are a couple of examples of such arguments: Debunking the price myth: Apple vs. Dell The truth about the costs of Macs vs. costs of PCs. [...]

By: John Ashman

John Ashman — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:34:45 +0000

This is ridiculous. My friend bought a Dell last year and it cost him $2900 (and got ripped off, IMO). I configured a Mac just for the heck of it and it cost $2200 at the same time. That leaves money to buy Parallels and Vista and you have two computers for the price of one *and* it had the camera, the magnetic power adaptor and other features and software not included in the Dell. Further, his computer was just stolen, so I was looking again. The Mac is basically identical in price, adjusted for any hardware differences (but excluding Mac specific extras. Mac hardware is generally mid-level to high-end so you can’t compare low-end hardware computers to them.

IOW, IMO, anyone who buys a PC rather than a dual operating system Mac is a bit dense.

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:16:55 +0000

A very good comparison. I’m a Linux user myself and I’ve been saying Macs are overpriced. I know a lot of Apple people are going to be quick to flood your email about this, but facts are facts.

By: TuringTest

TuringTest — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:04:19 +0000

You seem to know jack all about processors and the details of hardware, making such flippant statements as comparing a Sempron to a Core 2 Duo… are you really that stupid?

A single core, 32-bit processor versus a dual core 64-bit premium processor and the single core (entry level, no L2 cache Sempron) wins… uh, ok holmes.

You know superSPARC 1 running at 40 Mhz stomped the bejesus out of a Pentium at 100MHz… like clock speed doesn’t mean everything.

By: Knuth_is_the_man

Knuth_is_the_man — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:56:44 +0000

You don’t seem to know enough about computers to make these comparisons.

1) The Athlon 3400 you mention is a single core that has a much different clock speed, but clock speed is not a measure of performance. The exact same processor with the same memory hierarchy would be faster with a higher clock speed but different architectures (yes they share the base x86 CISC 16 and 32 bit extensions, but there are optimized instructions that cater to each processors) are not necessarily faster (read any recent benchmark on Tom’s Hardware).

2) There is also a quality, fit and finish, resolution and overall benchmarking issue that you are neglecting. And the models you choose are missing more than just a “camera” when it comes to comparison: differences in chip sets (north bridge, south bridge, I/O controller) on the motherboard, brand and speed of the drives, BATTERY LIFE.

When I actually add items (proc, memory, hd, screen options) to make it comparable to a the MacBook, the prices are close ($100) and you still miss iSight, Bluetooth, 802.1x, etc.

You obviously don’t know enough about the details to be writing this.