Yup, I wrote this.
Quoted from article:
"Kaldor - 07/28/2008 8:16 AM Wrote:
"Its a Mac. Congrats on paying too much for a computer."
How much is too much? Let’s take a look at a solid apples to apples comparison. We can already see from the previous results that Macs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh only command a small premium over an exactly equipped PC and in some cases cost even less for the same thing.
Where do these baseless misconceptions come from? At one point in time, Macs were more expensive than PCs, but even back several years ago, the difference is not "double the price" as some have mentioned. Compare hardware to hardware, not one way cheaper PC that "does the same thing" to a better configured Mac."
OK, its on now. You want to talk about prices. Lets talk more about comparable performance per dollar. I look at everything from a performance stand point. If all I was doing was email, internet, and Word, a simple $500 laptop with a nice 22" LCD hooked up to it would be more than adequate.
Lets start with the laptops:
$1999 MacBook Pro vs. $1999 Dell XPS M1730
I am the furthest thing from being a Dell fanboi. But for sake of argument Ill humor you. Processor and memory identical, check. Video card is a difference however. The 8700 in the Dell is faster than the the 8600 by a good margin in spite of shared memory. Go look up some benchmarks and compare the actual hardware specs. Your right about the monitor, the Dell is nicer. WiFi, meh, who really cares honestly. Draft N isnt a big deal if your internet connection isnt that fast, but Ill grant you that N is nice to have, even if you wont make full use of it 80% of the time. Im not going to get into connectors or features as most dont amount to a hill of beans.
Now you want to get into the performance sector of the laptops, what dont you compare the Mac to a Sager 5796 for less than $2000. Lets see, same processor, check, same memory check, bigger HD, check, better video card, check, same screen, check. You could select any laptop around $2000 and compare it to the Mac, and preach the Mac is better. The Mac is good at what it does, general desktop activities like email, Word, internet. It sucks for anything that requires any kind video card power. But if your paying $2k for an email machine, you need to have your head examined.
Next!
$1799 MacBook Air vs. $2099 Envy 133
Really who gives a crap? I personally wouldnt buy either. Im not going to compare features either as its not worth my time. Basically you can buy a laptop that will do everything these 2 laptops will do for alot cheaper. Will they look as stylish, no. These are "Ooh, shiny" machines. Neither are honestly for the average user. They are marketed toward people that are willing to pay too much for too little performance just because its the "new cool thing" that has a slick marketing campaign behind it.
OK on to the desktop.
This is where I have a huge difference of opinion. The Mac is designed to do desktop work. However, do you really need a pair of Xeons in a workstation/work PC? Not really. You can easily get get a Q6600 setup with a good videocard for far less money that will do everything the Mac will do, maybe a touch slower in some apps, alot faster in others, for 1/2 the cost. What your forgetting is the fact the PC will do everything a Mac can do, definitely cheaper, and most of the time, faster/better. The point most people, myself included, is Macs for what you are getting are over priced. There is no reason to spend $2800 on a Mac when a PC can do the same thing for $1400. Say what you want about design, components, whatever. The fact remains that Mac is still pawning 1+ year old hardware off on people without a clue at a far higher price than a comparable PC.
The real geniuses at Mac arent the people building and designing the machines, but the marketing team. They certainly dont have a superior product in most regards, but because the marketing team can line up the sheep, people will buy the Mac, regardless if they need it or not.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram