The Apple Mac Cost Misconception

[undead]

Tuan,
If the point of your article is to say that the cost of a Mac is comparable to a PC with exact same specs, you don't even need to write an article because we all know that. I personally don't think that Macs are overpriced. It's just that Macs have stuff that I don't need and I don't want to pay for. Like I said before, I love Apple stuff and I don't think Macs are overpriced. But my gripe is that you article is not realistic and it accomplishes nothing. There are PC fanboys here who will call you names for writing a Mac article. But I and some commenters here are bitching and whining because of the quality of the article. We expect more(i.e. better quality). And take this as a friendly advice (not a threat, don't get me wrong), please don't tell the readers to go elsewhere. Here is the reason; Tom's is doing business and businesses need customer, and we, readers, are customers. If you tell the customers to go elsewhere, that won't go well with the bosses (I am talking about the executives at Best of Media Group, not the editors). So, just be smart..man, don't do or say things you will regret later. Best of luck to all of Tom's again.

 

[spaztic7]

- Lian Li case because it's the equivalent to the Mac Pro tower. Get a clue.
- "Can I access the source code of Mac OS?" http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
- "Can I modify Mac OS source code?" See above.

Your opinion does not make it a fact. I think my Gigabyte 3D Aurora case looks better than that Mac cheese grater.

User your opinions as just that.

 

[Guest]

I used to want a Mac because I had so many problems with windows, but after I read an article in Wired about Steve Jobs, I no longer wish to support Apple. In my own personal opinion, the way he treats his employees seems unethical to me, as I would never be able to handle it. Hence, I have switched to Ubuntu, and I will never look back.

 

[Antioch18]

Tuan, I have nothing at all against macs. I grew up using macs at school.

However, there were a few good posts in here about how you should have written this article, and they even gave examples of what you should have done. I suggest you either go do this, or remove this article and place it on some editorial column where it's clearly known that it is a biased article.

That's all. No hard feelings, no name calling or anything. This is what I meant by responsibility. We, the readers, would like to see technical articles on THG.

 

[chromaone]

As others have noted, a few stilted comparisons don’t disprove any ‘myth’ or ‘misconception’.


To me, it is less interesting to examine what Apple sells than what it somehow chooses not to sell.

I can buy an Apple laptop. I can buy an all-in-one box with a CPU that that’s a most a C2D, no quads. Or I can buy an Apple in an expandable case built on Intel’s server platform with an entry-level price of $2800. (TH doesn’t really cover that segment, no?)

I don’t have to tell you, since you mentioned this in passing in your article, but Apple doesn’t (and hasn’t now for years) sold anything that could be considered a main-stream PC. Interest here is largely in the higher end of this segment. Please show me how Apple competes here.

 

[Guest]

ok, you lost all your credibility in this article when you chose to spend $550 on the case and power supply alone.

 

[goodsyntax]

Tuan,

I agree, this has turned into a flame war, which is unfortunate.

My point which has not been addressed sufficiently is the concept of building a replica Mac. Computers are simply tools to perform a task. Replicating a Mac and sourcing components from the same vendors is senseless. Of course the Average Joe will not be able to realize much in the way of savings by building a clone. Average Joe does not have the purchasing power of Apple, and so at best you would only save a few percent over what you could configure at the Apple store (with the exception of upgrades). Given that computers are tools, you would want a tool that best serves its purpose. You wouldn't use a socket wrench to hammer down nails with would you? Same goes here. If I want a gaming rig, every component I choose would be selected for the purpose that the machine would fulfill. Like I said before, a high end video card does nothing for my grandparents email computer but add cost.

Unfortunately, Apple does not allow us the freedom to pick and choose components, which in turn leads to unfavorable cost comparisons when stacked against purpose built servers/workstations. With Apple's move to Intel and generic components, the possibility exists that they could open their hardware platform which would eliminate the cost argument. The price of such a move, and feel free to ask Microsoft, is the need to support every standards based hardware component out there, which is nearly impossible. The general consumer does not complain that their sound card driver is causing memory leaks; they simply bash the software vendor (Microsoft) and accuse them of producing inferior products. This is a point that Apple understands very well and so leads to their closed system stance.

But again, I must say what is the point you are trying to prove with this article, that we do not have the purchasing power to undercut Apple by 20-30% for an identical machine? These days the PC is a commodity, surely you understand this.


[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]GoodSyntax -Here's the thing. Firstly, there are tons of comments here that seem to have no arguments whatsoever and only simply get angry or personally attack other people. It also seems that anyone who has anything positive to say about Macs, automatically get voted down. I'm sure you've noticed.In regards to your argument, the point was to prove that you can do either or. You can be more expensive or less expensive - BOTH on the PC and Mac side. It all depends on what you do with the build. My point being this, I am proving that Macs aren't ridiculously over priced (save for the upgrades that Apple sells), than PCs of equivalent build. You can ALWAYS build something cheaper, but that's not the same argument and building something the same for way less.Yes, with a custom built computer you do have the freedom to stick in ANY component you wish. There's no arguing with that. It was all about the prices, and the OS. It seems to me that people just look at things on the mere surface and say "Oh! Look, this one is the same and is way cheaper. Macs are overpriced." That to me indicates a degree of prejudice. The question is "let's take a look at why this system could cost more than the system next to it."Some users point out good interesting things, but the majority are just trolling, flaming, bashing, name calling, threatening, and down right abusive. I"m just so intrigued because no one forced anyone to read anything. If they don't like it, it was free anyway. [/citation]

 

[spaztic7]

This is the internet. I dont get paid to check spelling and grammer. Although it seems that neither do the Toms' staff.

+1

 

[nukemaster]

[citation][nom]gxsolace[/nom]Did you read the description tag on the system memory box on the Dell spec page you idiot? It says part of system memory will be shared for use with graphics.You sir are total tool.[/citation]
Do you understand that dell is covering the 32 bit OS limit? they do not say it WILL be used, they say it MAY be used.

Shared Memory (SDRAM) - (under 4GB) - Significant system memory may be allocated to support graphics, depending on system memory size and other factors.

I just finished talking to DELL. Yes its DEDICATED!!! they just do not want users calling then because there shiny new 4GB dell has only 3.5 or ever 3.0 with SLI.

Guess what on XP 32 with 4 gigs of memory and a 8800GTX. guess what? due to the 32bit address space limit and other "factors" I only get to use 3.12 of it on one board and 3.25 on another. Does that mean the 8800GTX's had shared memory?

You sir are the TOOL!!!

 

[JimmyJimmington]

[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]no. Dell's spec page indicates that it is shared. Please check out the Dell page for that laptop.For the SLI, the config is entirely different.[/citation]
If you dont believe me, call them yourself or contact their support team through live chat on your website. I'd rather take a Dell sales associate who used to work as an XPS repairman over your misreading of the website. That 2 citation is a blanket link that they use on all of the models. You'll notice under the SLI video card description, it says the same thing. PLEASE, CALL THEM YOURSELF AND HAVE THE ARGUMENT WITH THEM. Would you like me to call again and get a recording of the conversation?

 

[goodsyntax]

[citation][nom]scimanal[/nom]I think everyone should just agree that Tuan clearly wrote about something non-objective and by doing so crossed the line tht Tom's Hardware used to stand for...Simple as that[/citation]

Amen!

 

[Guest]

Tuan: Like 90% of nVidia mobile GPU's, the 8700M GT uses BOTH. In addition to the dedicated 256MB of onboard DDR3 memory, nVidia Quadro, 9x00M and 8x00M graphics units can also grab system memory for their use as well. It is the next-gen "TurboCache." This is exactly the case, it is just a misconseption on Dell's site.

What I cant believe is that you are defending inaccurate information. Perhaps call Dell yourself?

 

[russki]

no. Dell's spec page indicates that it is shared. Please check out the Dell page for that laptop.
For the SLI, the config is entirely different.

Tuan, now here you sound like a complete idiot, simply because this issue was addressed in the posts preceding yours. I do give you a benefit of the doubt and prefer not to attack your person, but the point you make here is blatantly false. Read the post above about turbo cache. I think that has more to do with it than what nukemaster is saying above, but even then, nukemaster's point is also valid.

Please understand the statement you make and realize that not everything you read means what you literally interpret it to say due to lack of knowledge.

 

[Guest]

Tuan time to put this shared video crap to rest, go get both laptops SIDE BY SIDE REVIEW! with Benchmarks, then they can all yell about the 8700 being superior or inferior.

 

[nukemaster]

The 2nd part gets better, but there is too much clear bias.

The memory is dedicated no matter what you say. Dell IS covering the 32bit memory address space issue in a way users will understand.

Shared Memory (SDRAM) - (under 4GB) - Significant system memory may be allocated to support graphics, depending on system memory size and other factors.

I just finished talking to DELL. Yes its DEDICATED!!! they just do not want users calling then because there shiny new 4GB dell has only 3.5 or ever 3.0 with SLI.

Guess what on XP 32 with 4 gigs of memory and a 8800GTX. guess what? due to the 32bit address space limit and other "factors" I only get to use 3.12 of it on one board and 3.25 on another. Does that mean the 8800GTX's had shared memory?

 

[JimmyJimmington]

Tuann, I spoke with a different employee over live chat and took a screenshot since I know you can't be relied upon to do your own research. http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p98/JimmyJimmington/TUANSWRONG.jpg

 

[ram1009]

I will consider owning a MAC when I can build it myself and it runs as much software as a PC. I fail to see why anyone would limit themselves to only 10% (my estimate) of the software available to PC owners. Also, I often see websites with special instructions for viewing by MACS. They are a bastard product. Always have been and probably always will be. And YES, I have used them.

 

[JimmyJimmington]

You should also mention that the macbook air is only thinner because it doesn't have a cd drive.

 

[b777]

[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]no. Dell's spec page indicates that it is shared. Please check out the Dell page for that laptop.For the SLI, the config is entirely different.[/citation]

No it does not. The footnotes that indicate "shared" are only on the SLI graphic cards, not on the 8700M one. You are being dishonest.

And sure who cares about the truth and actual hardware configuration, as long as the Dell spec page appears to indicates that it is shared, I would stick by it no matter what is right and what other people who knows better said. "typical Mac user"

 

[cruiseoveride]

You made a mistake with your pricing about the MacPro, the MacPro has Harpertown CPUs which are more expensive. There is no custom build out there that is cheaper than the base MacPro, Intel makes sure Apple cannot be beat on those chips.

And this business of Operating systems,

Vista = Is shit, but hey! every software company in the world supports it. Dont forget Games.
MacOSX = A crippled binary only version of Darwin, No software at all.
Linux = The real deal, but no big name software titles


I'd take Vista over MacOSX if they were the last two operating systems in the world, because i cant do f**k all with MacOSX, but play with iLife till my eyes comes out.

 

[lopopo]

My post was the second to last post before Tuan responded...after reading some of the other comments....

1)No one is perfect (the people above like myself have done stupid things)
2)To write an article and title it "The Apple Mac Cost Misconception : Macs and Their Prices" I would spend at least one month and proofread endlessly because it is a complicated subject.
3)I have read your stuff in the past. It did not jump out at me like this article.
4) Reading the feedback from some of the articles over the last couple of months people are generally upset at the decline in quality of TOM's articles.

If number 4 is the case. If you guys are pressured to put out so many articles a day and you don't really get what you need to get the job done then perhaps you are not to blame. If that is the case I would like to hear from the editor or whoever decided that this article was ready to go. It just seems like other websites are on the ball while you guys are not. Whatever the reason this article does not bode well for TOM's.

 

[pcgamer12]

This article is written by a Mac fanboy, nuff said. This garbage is not worth reading.

 

[Plain Old Me]

My ZT that I bought about 6 months ago for just over $1000 has about the same, if not better, stats than any of the computers listed in this article...

 

[russki]

Amen!

Disagree. Tuan did not just write an opinion piece, he distorted facts that he presented and did not support his opinion. That's what I have a problem with. It's ok to write opinion pieces, even on Tom's, but the facts need to be objective (there are numerous examples of the desktop clone, and numerous mentions that you CAN NOT compare 15" vs. 17" laptops as they serve different markets and the panel is a significant cost factor.

I'm not saying that there aren't valid reasons to like Mac hardware or OSX, but if you're writing an opinion piece, you need to be able to support it with genuine facts. Otherwise, it's an not an article but rather incoherent ramlings.

By the way the two points that I don't think are undermined are a) usability-centric design (not to say that I like the end result, but I like a lot of principles a lot more than their implementation on Windows); and b) xterm.

That's really thin for the 9 page article.

 

[Guest]

You can configure the following from the Dell online store:

DELL XPS M1530

PROCESSOR Intel® Core? 2 Duo Processor T8300 (2.4GHz/800Mhz FSB, 3MB Cache) edit
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Business Edition SP1 edit
SYSTEM COLOR Tuxedo Black edit
LCD PANEL AND WEBCAM High Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LCD(1440x900) & 2MP Camera edit
MEMORY 2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms) edit
HARD DRIVE Size: 250GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive edit
OPTICAL DRIVE Slot Load DVD+/-RW (DVD/CD read/write) edit
VIDEO CARD 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT edit
WI-FI WIRELESS CARD Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card edit
BLUETOOTH WIRELESS Dell Wireless 355 Bluetooth Internal (2.0+Enhanced Data Rate) edit
SOUND OPTION High Definition Audio 2.0

It is completely identical hardware wise to the Macbook Pro baseline model yet it only costs 1574. That's a difference of $475. So yes you can in fact get identical hardware for "way way less", even from Dell who overprice their hardware to begin with. If I looked around (Acer/Toshiba etc) I could probably shave a hundred or so more from the price.