The Apple Mac Cost Misconception

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The research involved in the writing of this article
must have been very rushed as the PC competitor to the
Macbook was listed as A) A notebook of a different
screen/chassis size which is simply the baseline of
any notebook comparison as it has the single largest
impact on price (exempting the option for and SSD
drive at the moment), and B) The video card was miss
quoted (There is no variant of the 8700M GT that uses
solely shared memory, it was the top end performance
part prior to the release of the 8800M GT). In addtion
a proper competitor to the Macbook Air is either the
Lenovo X300 or the LG P300. I was in the position of
choosing one of these three machines for my graduate
work during this past March and settled on the LG as
it is about the same price as a MacBook Air, every bit
as stylish, the same weight (give or take a 100g or
so) and in terms of performance there is simply no
comparison. The LG has a T8300 2.4GHZ, 2Gb or DDR2
667, and a stand alone Nvidia 8600GS 256MB with the
option of sharing another 768MB of system memory which
is not a concern even under Vista as this laptop has a
motherboard integrated 1GB of flash RAM for the
purpose of integrated Ready boost. The biggest thing that swayed me from the Macbook Air was that the LG not only had a GPU but also came with
a free external DVD-RW drive instead of costing me an
additional 100.00 or so dollars for one.
In the end you should get what ever you want, and assuming you
are looking at 2k+ laptops whats the difference in
another 500 or so, but do not be mistaken Macs are
quite overpriced for what you get and most likely
always will be due to the apple logo on the back and
the OS.
 
We are hardware enthusiast. Not people with ADD. We don't buy BMWs with the hood (bonnet) nailed shut. We supercharge the shit out of our engines to get that extra 2s on a lap time.

Since everyone is talking about OSX, I might as well give my comments on the matter.

OSX is Linux for people with ADD.

| Vista | OSX | Linux
----------------------------------------------
Cost | Expensive | cheaper | Free
> You cant beat Linux here, its always gonna win this

Software | Lots | nothing | Insane amount (but no big titles)
> I think FCP and PS are the only things worth mentioning for OSX, that too they are also available for Vista.

Stability | OK | better | Best
> OSX is running BSD, its stable, but its a binary only POS like Vista

Customisability | Good | shit | Best
> Changing the size of your launcher doesnt count Fanboys

Hardware support| Best | shit | Good
> Every manufacturer supports Vista as their target platform, Linux has its community, and OSX has Steve.

Upgradable | Good | Better | Best
> Upgrading a Microsoft OS is really dangerous, 5/10 you will have a crippled machine. Mainly because your apps dont get upgraded. OSX gets its steady updates, and Linux cant be beat, you can even upgrade a box running RedHat9 (2000) to Fedora 9 (2008) without issues.

Eye Candy | Good | OK | Best
> Linux can really have any sort of desktop environment your heart so desires.


 
I have to post comparing my new FW139E to the MBP one more time, I'll just list the advantages:

MBP Advantages:

+200mhz CPU (T8300)
8600GT w/ 256mb

Sony FW advantages:

-10W CPU Power Consumption (P8400)
+1 gig RAM
+50GB Hard Drive Space
Includes HDMI

So the one single advantage of the MBP is a slightly faster video card for gaming... which you can't do on a mac anyway. The Sony FW is an all around superior laptop in specs, and has an almost identical style

Sony FW Price: $999
MBP Price: $1999

Yup, clearly the mac/pc price thing is a "myth."
 
[citation][nom]crom[/nom]How many people here have even used Apple's OSX Leopard, or Tiger for that matter? Aside from hardware pricing, Apple has a superior product to Windows Vista. From the OS itself, boot up times, to the file system, Apple is far superior. Why has Apple grown to almost a 10% market share, up from 4%, in a year? Much like Firefox, Apple is filling a niche of people who don't like Microsoft's products.I just find it funny people here will immediately jump to conclusions without ever using the OS. I use Windows, Linux, and OSX on the desktop and enterprise level. [/citation]


I have, in fact, used OSX extensively. Personally, I did not like it.

People need to refrain from making assertions about Operating Systems which are not based on any kind of fact, but rather preference. To say "From the OS itself, boot up times, to the file system, Apple is far superior." is clearly just your preference.

I prefer the Linux file system. But it would be hubris of me to state that "ext3 is a superior file system." To say so would assume that all other readers on Toms Hardware value the same things from a file system that I do; which I highly doubt is the case.

When it comes to Operating Systems, it is all about preference. There is no point in arguing one way or the other, because in the end, i highly doubt anyone's OS usage is going to be effected by a 22 page Toms Hardware article thread.

 
I have a question ... and perhaps this is THE question to ask!

If the Mac OS is so good why is it not opened up for use on all hardware? After all, if it really is that good, it would suffer no problem in the market against Vista/XP and perhaps gain more market share?

I have a few thoughts on this and would like to hear others views on this.

a) The OS is locked to the hardware so that Apple sets the hardware pricing which gives higher profits at lower market share. (i.e. My wifes Dell 1720 was $1000 and an identical Mac is $2000, therefore, really the OS costs the $1000 extra.) Is the OS worth $1100 compared to Vista at $100 oem.

b)Does Apple keep Mac OS out of the mainstream by locking it to expensive hardware to prevent security issues, so that the OS appears to be more robust, when in fact the OS might be more or less more prone to attack had it had equivalent market share. This would save Apple a lot of money too.

c)Does Apple keep Mac OS out of the mainstream by locking it to expensive hardware in order to avoid having to work on compatability with a multitude of hardware? Saves money.

d) Is Apple just an image with well extruded (yes. extruded polymer) hardware for the clique that wants the brand image. After all image is everything 😉. So those consumers who wish can pay for the tag for no real benefit. Is that solely where the Mac success lies?

e) All of the above and more.

So it seems to me that MS is not so bad afterall. They, as all corporations try to do, make profit, but in the process they offer a lot of support and have helped fashion an entire industry. One would think if they had not, we would all be touting Mac vs. Sinclair (Spectrum 48K, yes I had one!) vs. Amiga vs. Amstrad vs. NEC at one tenth the speed, with a quarter of the peripherals and costing ten times the price.

my minimal 2c ... would like to hear others opinions
 
TYAN S5370G2NR-RS Dual LGA 771 Intel 5000V SSI CEB $279.99
Intel Xeon X3360 Yorkfield 2.83GHz x2 $1109.98
Crucial 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 FB-DIMM DDR2 667 $185.00
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST3750330AS 750GB 7200.11 $119.00
SAPPHIRE 100242L Radeon HD 4850 512MB $169.99
Creative Sound Blaster SB0570 Audigy SE 7.1 $27.99
Cirago BTA Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR USB $9.99
PPA Firewire 800 32 & 64 bits PCI Card $38.99
ASUS Blu-Ray Combo Black SATA Model BC-1205PT $139.99
Antec Performance One P180 Silver $134.99
Antec NeoPower 650 650W $129.99
Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 B2L-00047 w/ Mouse $21.99
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate $277.49
Total Price: $2645.38
Price Difference $134.28

Not a single thing was skimped on. I chose a Tyan motherboard, rather than a Supermicro, because I've been using them for a while, and I prefer them over Supermicro boards. I even upgraded it so it has 2 PCI-E slots, just in case you need more video power for your workstation. I chose the same CPU, just because it was the best deal for the price. The next tier up was around $150 more. I doubled the RAM with Crucial, I usually prefer Corsair myself, but I didn't see a 2x2 setup with DDR2 667 FBDIMMs. I upgraded the drive from that 320GB 16MB cache to a 750GB 32MB cache Seagate drive. I changed the 2600XT to a 4850, as 4850s are insanely better. I kept the same sound card, and the Bluetooth device. I wasn't entirely sure why there were two firewire cards, so I just chose the FW800 that Newegg had. I upgraded the DVD burner to a BluRay drive, with a DVD burner combo. It won't burn BluRay but it'll read them, and burn DVDs. I don't really like Lian Li cases, though they are quality cases, so I chose an Antec case. They're roomy, quiet, and very well built. I don't really know why a $300 1000 watt PSU was chosen for this, the entire system will probably pull around 200 max, but I again went with Antec, as I prefer their equipment over many varieties. I chose a NeoPower 650w, it's modular, so you can unplug unnecessary cables, and is rated for 650w at 50 degrees Celsius, which most companies only rate at 25C, as well as having a +85% efficiency rate. $40 for a terrible keyboard and an run of the mill mouse seemed completely unneeded, so I chose a Microsoft USB keyboard and mouse combo. Nothing special, but it's a good entry level keyboard, which is better than what was chosen in the article. And finally, Vista Ultimate, you could go OEM to save about $100, but he didn't, so I wont.

Now as people stated above me, this is the exact problem with Macs. Sure, I could go out find expensive parts for a PC, and match prices with a Mac, but I can buy better parts, for either the same price, or cheaper, and produce a vastly better computer for a lower price. If someone can take apart their Mac Pro, or find out through their system information panel what exact parts there are in their system, we can do an exact part for part comparison and see how much cheaper it is to build the very same PC. Or barring that, as absolutely close to equivalent parts as we can get.

So no, Tuan, it's not a misconception, it's very very true. Macs are simply more expensive than PC counterparts. If anyone wants to find fault in my argument, and list their own numbers, please be my guest.
 
@ mechanomorphis

Great comparison. You should have used the OEM licence, however, as that IS in fact what the OSX licence is. So your price difference really was $235is.

Your power supply is excellent (I have one, it's amazing.) The HD4850 compared to the 2600XT is like comparing a Pentium III to a modern Quadcore, and the 7200.11 drives are a huge improvement.

All in all, your system mobs the floor with the Mac Pro, in quality as well as performance. Well done.

Savings for this beast? $234.

 
Red is better than Blue every day of the week because I say so! [/trolling] [/sarcasm]

That's what the Mac people sound like when they talk about their user interface. (Hint: it's a perference, not a fact)
 
o man, im loving how practically every person that roams the forums [with a few exceptions] is bashing this author for this article... you seriously tried to trick a bunch of people on a computer hardware enthusiast site with these pathetic comparisons? EPIC PHAIL
 
@ mechanomorphis & bardia

What is strange though is if I absolutely had to have a mac, because I just had to have the image. I would have to drop at least $3K on it to have something that was somewhat upgradable. The other macs are not post purchase!

So if I really really want a Mac and I have $2000, I am s**t out of luck.

Whats more is, if I drop $3000 on that Mac, all I am getting is a couple of server processors, which really are no better than Core 2 Quads. I still have a crap disk and graphics system (not that I could game without forking out again for MS to dual boot). It is such an unbalanced system.
 
[citation][nom]deck[/nom]I have, in fact, used OSX extensively. Personally, I did not like it. People need to refrain from making assertions about Operating Systems which are not based on any kind of fact, but rather preference. To say "From the OS itself, boot up times, to the file system, Apple is far superior." is clearly just your preference. I prefer the Linux file system. But it would be hubris of me to state that "ext3 is a superior file system." To say so would assume that all other readers on Toms Hardware value the same things from a file system that I do; which I highly doubt is the case. When it comes to Operating Systems, it is all about preference. There is no point in arguing one way or the other, because in the end, i highly doubt anyone's OS usage is going to be effected by a 22 page Toms Hardware article thread. [/citation]

I said compared to Vista, not linux in my post. ext3 and AFP are superior to NTFS. It's a fact, not an opinion. Both are much newer than NTFS is.
 
Funny how the picture is of PC holding a gun to Mac.

Someone got shot alright, but it wasnt PC or Mac, it was the poor author.

"Bring a knife to a gun fight?" hahahaha

jeez 22 pages, man you just got killed. Well you're online respect at least. Better change your name.
 
MS will buy Apple. And we will have Vista Leo Dragon Flare.

I can see from this review that Mac is more easy to use than Windows. It just like how the console and PC games. When you play game with a console, there is nothing to worry about, but when it comes to games on PC, there are alot more things you need to know before purchase the games.
Alot people found Windows complicated to use, and way too many errors. But most average users of Windows, with them, Windows is already good.

Mac still lacks too many things, and that's why it can not put on a table to compare with Windows (there is nothing much to compares).
My oponion is, Mac is for casual web users, family use, entertainment (not hardcore gamer). People who doesn't want to spend their time to see Windows's errors and bugs.
Lolz.
 
Just 2 little comments here:

1) Windows has to deal with A LOT more hardware configurations than Mac OS X. That's were all the instability issues mostly come from.

2) If you don't game, why not go for a Linux distro and spending $0 instead of buying a seriously overrated OS X.
 
@ kidswithguns

I have used Windows since 3.11 and I have never ever had a BSOD! I tell you the truth!

colorblind
 
Why are you comparing using a model with Xeon processors, Vista Ultimate, and some other very high end parts?? The price difference every time I've compared them really comes in when comparing mainstream level parts.

Also for the laptop, last fall I did a comparison of my own. You're comparing the high and Apple laptop to a high end Dell laptop. Dell being another company known for being over priced. Why don't you try comparing 5 or 6 different brands. When I did my comparison I did 4 comparable gaming laptops. The Apple and Dell were very closely priced. The Asus G2S was by far the cheapest and from how things looked to me also the over all best machine of the lot. The fourth machine was an Alienware which was also a good deal cheaper than the Apple and Dell machine, but more than the Asus.
 
Does the author take us for idiots?

For taking the "cheapest minimum required components to build." he sure did cherry pick the terrible prices and overhyped toys. I seriously doubt apple uses components that are anywhere near as high quality as the cherry picked dollarmongers that you went with. They probably use decent quality reasonably priced parts.

I guarantee I could build a more powerful system for less money than ANY apple desktop. Though I can say the same for Dell, I don't have to. Why? Because I can buy the same OS Dell uses retail.

I cannot build a Mac from scratch because they don't sell a PC compatible version of the OS and they don't sell the individual components at competitive prices if at all.

The author of this article obviously has an agenda and is not above skewing his talking points to serve that agenda.
 
So the Desktop Mac's have $1000 xeon's in them? Never knew that. Also never knew they had $350 overpriced thermaltake power supplies. I'll build you a better computer for 900.
 
[citation][nom]crom[/nom]Apple's Open Directory integrates with AD: http://www.apple.com/itpro/articles/adintegration/Apple also has enterprise level management. http://www.apple.com/xserve/And SAN:http://www.apple.com/xsan/ [/citation]

All of these are crap in a mixed business environment. Xserve is a highly overrated\way overpriced POS. We run 5 here in the shop and can't even monitor them without getting a kernel panic. Sure they look pretty and have decent hardware in them but they are POS's.

As for the AD integration that too my friend is a complete joke.

Don't even get me started on the Xsan. We had (past tense)these and there is a reason they are not even close to being a leader in the real world networking environment.
 
What's really the disappointment here is that now this completely mis-representation garbage article will be linked and referenced by those who aren't sure and are looking for answers. Tom's has just done a huge dis-service to the web and the world in general by not just allowing this article to be posted on what is purported to be a reputable site, but by not pulling it and/or issuing an editorial apology.

I've been using macs and pc's for years. Both have their place but there are those delusional users who twist reality to suit whatever they want. In this case there are mac users who refuse to understand that they pay a premium for their product. The will do whatever they can to try and debunk this. I've read blogs and forum comments claiming the same garbage that this article author tries to give, but i've never seen it hit a high profile semi-decent publication. Expect this article to put a black eye on Toms in the hardware/reviews/enthusiast website circles.
 
It seems to me that www.tomshardware.com is changing more towards a Mac pro site and less enthusiast site. A few years ago, I was seeing many articles on new hardware regularly, but now all I see is news and stuff about Macs. GREAT!

Regarding this article, this is my understanding. When people compare the 2 OS's -> Windows vs OSX, they forget to compare the hardware. Granted, Vista runs poor on cheap hardware, and OSX runs great on a base MAC, bust just as your comparison states, a base MAC is actually the same price and config as a high-end PC. I have not seen Vista puke on most high-end PCS. Heck I built one and I have yet to have Vista crash. IMHO I feel Vista is much more stable then XP if you have good hardware (I know I will get bashed on this, please don't disappoint). I say that because I was having some problems with my XP OS with some proprietary software which went away when I installed Vista. Anywho. SO yes, PC's have more options, cheaper entry level systems for everyday stuff. Why would anyone pay 1500 for a base system in a Mac that ppl will mostly work on email, browsing, etc when you can do that on a $399 system as someone mentioned above?

So when comparing the 2 OS's even, you cannot say Windows sucks just because mostly folks dont compare the hardware. I can assure you, Windows will work the same or better with the same hardware. Also, when you talk about OSX is combined with ilife and what not, you need to understand that when Microsoft tried to add software that does the same stuff as other main stream software, they were sued. One of the things my MAC friends tell me is that MAC has everything out of the box, well thats because Apple did not get sued when they integrated all sorts of capabilities with OSX. Microsoft did get sued and was forced to pay damages and remove the capability. Wasnt Vista supposed to come with PDF capability and Adobe forced them not to? So there go you. However, You can do literally ANYTHING on a windows machine, and in most cases for free. Same with a WIndows Mobile phone compared to the iphone or blackberry.

FInally, you cannot install OSX easily on a non-mac computer. Enough said?
 
[citation][nom]bardia[/nom]@spartanii One cannot even say as a blanket statement that "Macs are more reliable" anymore. How can one measure "more reliable" when both are rock solid? I can't remember the last time I had a real genuine error on my Vista Ultimate desktop.[/citation]

what about hardware reliablilty? 9 year old I mac still runs fine, 4 year old pc had to replace mobo and psu after only 2 years. My friends Dell's harddrive failed after a year. And his macbook pro hes had for just as long even dropped in my driveway several times still hasnt had any problems with it.. so im sorry if I use blanket statements like MACs are more reliable because all the evidence ive seen points to the conculsion. Seriously how many people have built a pc with out some part crapping out on them at some point. I mean come on my very first MAC 66mhz (dont remember the rest of the specs, com on it was 13 years ago) still works or i should say functions because no new program would work on it but it still powers up and has all my old software still on the harddrive how many people can say that about there first PC?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom