The Apple Mac Cost Misconception

[Guest]

I've been a reader here since 1996, and here's the thing, can you really compare a car to a computer? A car has many tactile things that you can't readily describe through visual/audible representation, like you would with a computer. A computer goes straight to performance numbers, usability, and utility. There's no "luxury" aspect to a computer, as much as people would like to believe otherwise. There's a keyboard, mouse, speakers, monitor.

In this month's issue of a car magazine I subscribe to, they compared a modified $30k Mitsubishi Evo VIII to a stock $90k Viper, and in pure performance, the evo beat it. Now, the luxury, tactile feel, everyday experience, and image, the Viper beats it. No doubt in my mind. In terms of usability and performance (what really matters) it gets trounced. I get nostalgic when I think of my past project cars, I really don't get nostalgic about the 486SX2 50 + 487 math co-processor with 12 megs of ram I had during the Warcraft 2 days.

Just something to think about when comparing cars to something as fleeting as computing hardware.

 

[hsew]

PCs are not only FAR more customizable on both the hardware and software level, but, a similar, if not better performing custom built PC (that you build ON YOUR OWN) is substantially cheaper.

Let's face it, you can even put the Leopard OS ON A PC (if you know how). What's not to love?

And seriously, comparing a DELL to a Mac? no way, who in their right mind would buy a $2000 PC when they could build their own spending less money to achieve the same performance.

 

[Guest]

This story is quite simply absolute trash. I'm not even going to bother commenting about the first "comparison". If Apple hardware is as good as its made out to be, let it do the talking instead of trying to twist rediculous facts and figures from an otherwise pointless article. Very dissapointing, Tomshardware.

 

[totenkopf]

Wow... Is this article for real?

Not that it is necessarily very relevant to this article...but....

My favorite thing about Apple is their ridiculous and shamefully ironic TV ads with the Mac guy and the PC dork. I love how they so clearly segregate the computer world into two distinct camps even though this perverse generalization is in no way founded in reality. Even better is that they make these outrageous claims about PC's poor performance, lack of personalization, and PC's general state of suckiness, that are founded on overblown misconceptions and gross generalizations. Before you attack others, make sure your own gear "just works".

All the while, Mac hipster guy is just so smug and cool... I love how Apple tries to bundle their iJunk with a cool, with-it, fonzie, nonconformist image. In reality Apple is about as bland as it gets. Apple is all about conformity: they all look the same, they all use the same software, they don't support crap but their own stuff, Jobs is like hitler when it comes to third-party-anything (Thanks for "bricking" everyones iPhone, ass!).

(@lafery) Apple is the same two bit, scandalous, super capitalist corporation as microsoft (at least Bill Gates practices philanthropy), so get those images of Steve Jobs and his iLightsaber striking down Darth Gates out of your head. All Apple did was style and paint it's iCrap white to make it look like some 70's art deco future turd, procure a hip persona, and now they are waging this strange guerilla-warfare-esque ad campaign against M$ using the disillusioned youth and people who buy laptops to match their shoes, so as to boost sales. Seriously though, If you housed an etch-a-sketch in the macbook air's enclosure iTards would be lining up to buy it... in fact they probably wouldn't notice or care as long as it looks stylin', is twice as expensive as the boring, original, conformist etch-a-sketch, and buying it means they are stickin' it to the man.

I know i sound crazy... but not as crazy as the guy who wrote this article! I mean seriously, what's he smokin'? Just face the fact that Apple is too expensive and, at best, the same quality as a PC. Also, in regards to looks? Working for Tom's I would assume this author has browsed neweggs huge selection of computer cases, mouseseses (mice?), keyboards and everything else you can buy (for cheap) to make your computer unique and far better looking than any Macintrash.

But I still can't take that slogan away from them: "it just works". I'm glad they are enabling more people to continue to be completely computer illiterate. If you had even a little general skill you wouldn't be relegated to the Mac world... surprisingly MOST people use PCs and even manage to scratch out a few TPS reports, all in a good days work! A computer should be treated like a pet, not a appliance, take care of it and it will serve you well for years. or you can buy a Mac and never really have to understand anything about a computer... although you still bother me on my lunch break to ask me how to make it >insert asinine tech support question here<

If marketshare is apples goal, they should be careful. It keeps people from making viruses for them because with the marketshare they have it isn't economically viable (could be wrong), you couldn't make a zombie network big enough to hack in to your overweight kids lunchbox.

Glad I couldn't help end this mac v. pc debate, it's so entertaining! please continue, Apple fans, I'm sure the computer industry is the one, single industry ever where building it yourself or buying generic is not more economical than buying the expensive name brand.

 

[eltouristo]

"Lets see now, Windows Media center does ALL of the recording and tracking of new episodes and lets your chose how many you want to keep.
Hauppauge gives a editor to cut commercials without recoding. Nanocomsos or something like that.
DivX Author for $10 will do all the recoding/commercial cutting for other devices that support DivX." Firstly WMC does really kinda suck, there's pretty broad agreement on that. Frontrow is a little better, but Im not raving about it. Hauppauge is the only brand card i didnt try because at the time (and still may be) it wouldnt record captions at all. I have avermedia combo card. Avermedia center can be a bit more streamlined that WMC but in all it aint much better. never used DivX Author I may look into that. My point was also, and I still think you would agree if u tried eyeTV, that even at things that both platforms do, eyeTV does it easier, sometimes much easier, and sometimes better. Never less easy or worse quality. And I bet there are still a few nice little functions not on PC. Those are general statements about all the functions we covered under PVR. The only way you would ever really understand what Im talking about is if u used it. I've used both, tho not all the software u mentioned (eyeTV is the only third party u need to do everything and its seemless with all those MAC media titles). Until u have used both, reserve judgment. My friend just told me he uses a (user community) mod for eyeTV that automatically removes commercials instead of manually.

 

[Urkel]

Toms Hardware should be ashamed of themselves. I'm a Mac user but even I am sad to see TH go down to the "pointless mac stories for attention" level.

These biased comparisons may work in the Mac-Fanboy world but on Toms Hardware then users are far too tech (and bargain) savvy to pull this kind of junk off. Sensationalistic stories may get diggs from the vocal Mac enthusiasts but they hurt the credibility of the site when you straight out lie.

BTW. Here's the base specs of Apple's lineup. No tech geek would guess these are all 2008 prices:


Mac Mini:
$600 1.8ghz - 1GB - 80GB HDD - No DVD Burner

Macbook:
$1100 2.1ghz - 1GB - 120GB - No DVD Burner

iMac:
$1200 2.4ghz - 1GB - 250GB - SuperDrive

Mac Pro:
$2800 2.8ghz Quad - 2GB - 320GB - SuperDrive

I've been waiting to update my Macbook and Mac Mini for almost 2 years. Apple better get a refresh soon.

 

[magicandy]

This article is further proof that Tom's is becoming more and more just a puppet for Apple and the other big industry players. Doing future articles on AMD procs as well as ATI gpus gave you a few brownies points in fairness, but this article just bought you right back to square one as the mainstream tool that you are.

 

[gigosaga]

While I personally favor the PC for my home computers due to the fact I am a gamer on top of other things, I have an open mind about Apple/Mac, Windows, and Linux. I have a good deal of experience with Macs, but am not as accustomed to it as a Windows based PC which I use every day of course. I work in IT and when doctors ask me what they should get for personal, the answer is always what is best for them, whatever they are comfortable with using.

That being said, I have to seriously disagree with many of your arguments and contest they are just as bad or worse than the "misconceptions" you believe you are clearing up. A realistic price for the same hardware in terms of performance virtually always has the Mac version being more expensive - those are truly hand picked models. I look at other brands that even offer similar product comparisons based on other features of weight and size like even IBM show obvious pitfalls. Further those are the laptops only, which carry a premium on the PC end just as it does on the Mac side, but there is a limit to how much the common consumer is willing to pay for a product, regardless of benefits on the customer side. If you made a desktop comparison, the price would show a more obvious skew. The fact is yes, you pay a premium for the design/look, but you always just pay a premium to get a Mac and be "in" with their marketing of being part of this cool crowd of special people as part of the brand. It's no different than paying for a Sony Style system. Hey, sometimes there are so real benefits or features but rarely do those justify the price differences.

While the OS is certainly a draw, lets not fool ourselves into the false belief that part of the reason for some of the success of all Apple products is simply based on marketing and design (they look cool). 90% of the people I help justify their Mac preference like them because they have good marketing and they look good first, the OS is a secondary benefit (based on marketing).

I will disregard any arguments over the belief a Mac is more reliable than a PC on the Hardware or Software level. There are a lot of PC manufacturers to consider, sample size issues and data source problems. On the OS side, if reliability means it doesn't get viruses and stuff - while that is mostly a user problem. All OSes have their flaws and can be exploited. Several recent events can be leveraged to make arguments but those don't pose realistic home user situations - the home user is more likely to infect themselves than suffer from a targeted attack. The only real "reliability" benefit that a Mac has is they know exactly what limited hardware is going in to it so they can do more testing, but that does not mean there is not a proper amount of hardware/software testing on the PC side. I have also used Windows on a Macbook Pro and the experience was less than desirable, though issues were limited, they were annoying when I know I could be without them.

On the usability level of the OSes, between Windows XP, Windows Vista and OS X, that's mostly up to the user belief as well. I used Macs extensively while in school and while working in journalism and there aren't ally any honest grounds to say OS X is more usable than Windows. Sure, Windows Vista did some really stupid things - I won't contest that fact. I do personally like the OS X dock (which is something akin to Windows' Quicklaunch / Start Menu in various degrees) as I like a clean Desktop with only limited icons on it - but it doesn't provide any real added function - I just like to see my desktop background image. The Dock is a little better than the basic start menu not including "All Programs" to me as by default it allows quick access to more applications while the Start Menu, you'd have to make a very simple change to allow that, but that's what the Desktop/Quicklaunch are arguably for. But once you need to go beyond the Dock for applications, OS X is seriously lacking. Most common users I know do not understand that an application exist or how it is possible accessible if not right in their face on the desktop, doc, main pane of the start menu. More of them can find things in the Start menu than navigating their system folders. But I also know many people with 50 desktop icons - that's just how they organize and use their computer. So overall I wouldn't say one is really superior than the other on a basic usability level. Linux... well, that's not for the common person even though it has emulated many features from other OSes.

Updating (OS/Drivers) can be easier on OS X since the hardware and software come from the same place and thus you can go to one place to update. Whereas on a PC, if you do so manually, you need to go to 2 places - Windows Update and sometimes your OEM. OEM ease of update varies by brand. Some I have found very easy and helpful, others are just annoying.

Other random benefits like many Graphic Artist I have heard say a Mac is better than a PC for their work because it "draws images better". That was true... in the 80s and early 90s maybe and I've looked into the issue a fair amount at the hardware and OS level as a totally anal person when it comes to image and audio quality but it's seriously difficult to make such justifications when they now use the same hardware components as a PC. This is the "at one time, so must still be true" factor that is continuously propagated over time by people like "hate". But if they're more comfortable using a Mac because they're accustomed to it, that's fine with me. If they want a Mac because it looks cool and they feel that adds to the creative environment while they are working that's fine too. Even if they just want it because it looks col and it adds nothing. But be honest.

A Mac can be the right choice for many people but very few if any can argue with honest facts that it's the right choice because it is actually superior in any significant manner. It's really only preference.

 

[othersidesounds]

oh gawd.... This place used to be cool....

dude, seriously take the mac crap with you before you kill this site...

go yank your mac chain in a mac forum.

good riddance

 

[Titanius]

To the author of this article:

You failed, miserably. I can't believe you wrote a follow-up to your previous failed article about how you love your shinny new Mac and want us to strongly consider buying one because it has "features". Now your follow-up contains the supposed myth of PCs vs Macs prices, yet you compare a PC, that an uninformed person would build, to a Mac; or apples to apple pie. You inform us that you are unbiased and objective yet your article tells us how biased you are and especially how subjective you can be. If you had half a conscience left, you would have never produce this piece of uniformed garbage. I personally have a conscience and I can tell you that I would have personally shot myself if I ever and the nerve to write such an article.

This article = Epic Fail.

 

[anonymous x]

please don't pick the most overpriced PCs to compare with the macs. If you actually did some searching, you will find way cheaper machines. I see you recently switched to mac, do macs come with a built in brainwashing app or something, cause I know plenty of mac people who spam forums with their mac ads, and now, this is happening in toms hardware articles...

 

[foxhound009]

macs are faster? if you'll look at the price of the hardware rather
than hardware itself. You'll allway get an faster PC.
there's no need to overpay for the more utilized hardware for
OS when you can just get better hardware.

macs are for designers and hypewhoR3$

 

[patterntangle]

Ah yeah, tom's hardware is a site for PC geeks, so these article's are never going to go down well. I like these articles because I'm a mac convert after building my own PCs for years and even being a PC technician for about 5 years. I don't own a mac because they're cool. Not until owning a mac did I realise how good osx really is.
oh and to person who stills thinks PCs refer to Macs and aswell, the English language has changed behind your back. When people say PC they mean a windows box. If you want to include both PCs and Macs - say computer.

 

[Guest]

see that's the flaw with this article, the fact that you almost ALWAYS have to alter and upgrade your baseline when ordering a machine, and that's why MACS ARE ALOT MORE EXPENSIVE.

Heck, even the author admits it, but then goes on this much longe than it needs to be tyrade.

Macs are overpriced, plain and simple, even ther baseline comparisons generally favored PC (Voodoo does not count, they are worse than Mac with their price gouging).

I mean, i have no problem with Mac per se (aside from the snobbishness and the god awful misinformation campaign commercials), heck, i'd even PREFER them to be the majority market share holder (at least at present time) and be the primary software supported OS and machine maker, but they arent, their upgrades (Which most people would probably want/need) cost way too much, and it just isnt worth it for a machine that isn't really superior for gaming or otherwise performance heavy apps (which is generally the reason to put down more for a computer).

 

[fulle]

I only read the first page. Like others have already pointed out, the 8700M does not use shared memory... they have 256-512 MB of dedicated memory, and technology to also share from your RAM. Its very similar to a 8600M GT, but with a faster core, shader, and memory clock.
I honestly cannot believe that someone working for a hardware website would post that they think that a 8600M GT is faster than the 8700M GT... its mind boggling.

Like angry_ducky pointed out, the XPS M1530 would have been a better choice to compare MAC hardware against. With identical components and Vista Ultimate the Dell costs 1650 (anyone saying less is forgetting about things like the LED screen upgrade). For 2,049, which is about the MAC book's cost, its possible to add a blue ray player. The Macbook Pro has $350 mark up over the Dell XPS M1530, and like others have mentioned if you buy a Dell at full price you just got screwed!

The bottom line with Macs is that you pay a premium for a machine that is capable of doing less, but has some user friendly features and support, as well as some spiffy included software. For anyone with any kind of technical savvy, its not a fair trade, and I find it ironic that Mac users think they're superior somehow. Like said in response to your last article:
"You bought a Mac? Congrats on paying too much for a computer."

Also, congrats on 14 pages of people saying the same thing. "This article = Epic Fail." Did you do this for attention? because, this is not the kind of attention I would want if I was intending on keeping my job.

 

[Guest]

The reason why Macs will cost you significantly more is that you will be stung by upgrades.

Stung because you need to buy Apple-approved hardware and software, which carries a premium.

Stung because minor updates to the OS (10.x), of which there have been four or five since Windows XP came out, will have had you paying over $100 for each. Windows XP service packs have been free. And say what you want about Vista (it is slow and bloated), it only costs the same as a minor update for Mac OS 10.x.

You said it yourself in the article: "o where do things get really hairy with Apple? Upgrades. Apple really stabs you in the face when you?re upgrading your Mac. All goes well when you want to buy a base system, but as soon as you want to add options, be prepared to be murdered."

Where is the misconception? Where are the myths? Is my desire to upgrade my computer at least once every couple of years unfounded?

 

[dmacfour]

Man I'm disappointed... trying to say that an 8600m gt is better than a 8700m gt. try comparing the XPS 1530, which is much closer to the Macbook Pro in performance and good looks.

 

[bigjuliefromchicago]

"You can ALWAYS get something cheaper in this world."

Unless you want a Mac.

 

[Urkel]

[citation][nom]dirtythirdstreets.com[/nom]i can get a working new pc laptop for $600 that works fine. i could never get a new mac laptop for that price. [/citation]

Thats the point that the author seems to be missing. If you're going to try to disprove the "Macs are more expensive" argument then you can't start at the top where prices are over the top on both sides. You need to compare entry-mid level where there is a distinct difference in pricing and hardware specs.

BTW. The way Tuan is handling himself here is embarrassing. His responses are all either spelling criticisms or telling people to leave the site. If his article is supposed to be "proof" of something then why not have a healthy discussion where he addresses all the obvious flaws?

 

[decoppel]

A lot of people here have expressed a similar opinion as me about this article in that it was pretty much bias in order to prove a point. I have been using this site for hardware information, including reviews and charts for a few years but only made an account today because it was the first time I honestly felt like I needed to respond to an article with a negative spin to my response.

This article in my eyes does not represent what TH is all about, and I am saddened that this kind of blantant bias has been written and published here.

 

[spaztic7]

Everyone here:

Please do not cloud the issue here with facts, your making the OP and Author (and anyone else who approved this "article") look bad.

 

[thx1138]

Apple never uses Intel's desktop CPUs like the Q6600. Other than the MacPro, every Apple computer is a laptop CPU, in different packages like the iMac or the mac mini. The desktop CPUs give the most bang for the buck. Best solution is to build a Q6600 or Q9450 or e8400 based desktop, then run hackintosh osx86 on it, and run VMWare Fusion (or set up dual boot if you're a gamer).

 

[Guest]

Wow. There are quite a few comments in regards to this article. There are always comments at the end of articles (when avaialable.) Why did the auther of this article feel the need to write an entire expose' of Apple to some posts of a previous article. I have never seen this done before at Toms and I have been reading since the founding of the site.

Honestly, I am disapointed. It almost seems as though someone was paid to write this. You job is not to address readers who make comments. Your job is to keep us "unbiasedly" informed of new hardware and trends. If you want to write an article about MAC's or PC's, fine. If you want to compare said computers against said MAC's or PC's, fine. I am fine with browsing any information in any article you post, but I am not looking for a lecture as to what I don't know or how you feel someone posted biased info. It happens all the time, get over it. This is not a social networking website. If it becomes one, you will quickly find me moving to different sources for my hardware information.

I read the entire article and in the end, I'm still not sure what point you were trying to make. Are you comparing Windows OS to Mac OS, or are you comparing PC hardware, to MAC hardware. Pick one and go with it next time. Don't pick at whim. On a custom build machine you priced a MAC against a PC with Windows Vista and came within $5 of each other. First, why didn't you use linux on that hardware, this would have shaved another $280 off the machine with your math. Second, for $280, you can get a full version of Vista that can be moved to new hardware, when you upgrade. Can you purchase a MAC machine without an OS? I haven't seen that, though I can't say I'm looking. If you wanted an OEM or systems builder Vista OS, the 64 bit Ultimate will set you back just under $180, that would have been a better comparison, since that license cannot be transfered. I also agree with the other posts that talk about who would build that machine. Why on earth would anyone toss in the hardware that was in that machine. I get most of my info about hardware from this site and I know the founders would never use that hardware in any system. Also, why purchase a pre-configured desktop, if you are just going to replace the hardware anyway. Why not just custom build and be done with it. More performance for less money is what it is all about. I don't read a lot about people overclocking their mac, why is that?

Now on the OS side. MAC moved to Open Linux OS and used their proprietary wand on it. Why not. Linux is freeware, no royalties, no limitations and a world of resource behind it. They are making money off it, great. But as soon as you make it proprietary and take it away from the open source world, it looses it's roots and it's value. Why not install a flavor of open linux on that box, instead of OS X? (I guess you have to pay the coin regardless if you use it or not.)

In the end, it's not if OS X can do this or do that. It's not if mac hardware looks real shiny when you rub a dust cloth over it. It's about getting value for your money. It's about getting the right hardware/software for the tasks you need to complete. If you are going to build an HTPC that will be in an AV rack in the same room as the display, it should be quiet, cool, and discrete. If it will be racked in a different room, than quiet or bright lights won't matter as much. Anything proprietary just won't give you those kinds of choices. So if Apple wants to start opening up their hardware, or thier OS, we will be happy to consider what they offer and integrate it with the hardware/software of all the other manufactures that we can choose from.

 

[bigjuliefromchicago]

[citation][nom]iocedmyself[/nom]There is a reason that Microsoft out sells apple 30-1, even the simplist of the simple minded can see that Mac isn't useful for everyday use. [/citation]

There is a reason, but that's not it. It's so old and obscure most of you young twerps probably weren't born yet. RC Cola and a Moonpie to someone who can name it.

 

[jap0nes]

I think you should have included options from other vendors, like lenovo, dell, sony, hp, toshiba, fujitsu, etc, for each category of computer.
It seems you picked the priciest apple competitors just to show they're equally expensive, although there are clearly other options (which was supposed to be the point of this article, right?).
Anyway, that's why i stopped reading on the second page.