New Apple vs. PC "Price Comparison"

ed m.ed m.
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
My Buddy Bryan over at TheMacObserver has posted the latest Mac vs. PC price comparison charts touching on all Apple systems. It's worth checking out.



I'm sure Matsu, LBB and other will have a few things to say... ;-) I'm sure Amorph and Programmer will as well.



<a href="http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/desktop_shootouts/2003/20030219/apple_desktops1.html"; target="_blank">Apple Consumer Offerings Compared</a>



<a href="http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/desktop_shootouts/2003/20030219/apple_desktops2.html"; target="_blank">Apple Pro Offerings Compared</a>



<a href="http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/desktop_shootouts/2003/20030219/desktop_0800.html"; target="_blank">$800.00 Systems Compared</a>



<a href="http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/desktop_shootouts/2003/20030219/desktop_1300.html"; target="_blank">$1,300.00 Systems Compared</a>



<a href="http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/desktop_shootouts/2003/20030219/desktop_1800.html"; target="_blank">$1,800.00 Systems Compared</a>



<a href="http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/desktop_shootouts/2003/20030219/desktop_2500.html"; target="_blank">$2,500.00 Pro Systems Compared</a>



<a href="http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/desktop_shootouts/2003/20030219/desktop_3000.html"; target="_blank">$3,000.00 Pro Systems Compared</a>



<a href="http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/desktop_shootouts/2003/20030219/desktop_3500.html"; target="_blank">$3,500.00 Pro Systems Compared</a>



--

Ed M.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Where are the laptop comparisons?
  • Reply 2 of 14
    ed m.ed m. Posts: 222member
    Yep, you're right... Apparently that one is coming soon



    --

    Ed
  • Reply 3 of 14
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    The MacObserver? I remember that site. I stopped going there after they trashed our forums a while back. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 4 of 14
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I'm a laptop user myself, hehehe... Part of the fun of owning the baby-book is noone here can heretofore accuse me of crying about Apple product I'm never going to buy. So there, HA! Every knows what I want from a desktop. The second Apple sells it, there will be not one but two Macs in my home. Easy as pie: make what customers want, get sale. We want affordable expandable (you know what I mean) competitive desktops.



    I'll start with the iMacG3. It Loses outright for being a curved screen 15" CRT in the year 2003. That's enough to kill it right there as it makes it ergonomically inferior to every single machine presented in it's category.



    Speaking of categories, some of those are truly ridiculous. Apple makes nice software, but NO PC user in existance needs or wants to emulate anything from the mac softwware universe. Mac users OTOH will need to emulate at least one or two bits of windows software just as I do for Access (hardly something minor) and some of the library stuff we work with.



    I don't agree with PC slant, but I don't agree with mac slant either. I can't wait to see how bad the rest of that comparo is.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    So many errors...



    1. 1 GHz iMac listed as using a 100 MHz system bus.

    2. 800 MHz iMac listed as using PC133 RAM.

    3. 1.8 GHz Athlon XP2200+ listed as being equivalent to a 1.0 GHz P4, and rated below two 2 GHz Celerons.

    4. SDRAM confused with SDR SDRAM... one system is listed as using "PC2100 SDRAM" as opposed to a "better" one that uses "PC2100 DDR." <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> such a common mistake.



    Well, I'm sure there are more, but I don't care to check.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Yeah, that section was to cockeyed to even consider. Idiocy, bias, and inaccuracy, wonderful review
  • Reply 7 of 14
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Well, taking a quick looks at it, the minibook seems to be by far the best apple value going right now.

    There simply just isn't anything like it on the PC side.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    hamfistedbunvendorhamfistedbunvendor Posts: 52member
    Sheer Quality is immesurable.



    i.e there is no real comparison. Go and play with XP Lego edition and stop worrying what 5% of us think





    Thanks Apple.
  • Reply 9 of 14
    bluedjinnbluedjinn Posts: 56member
    [quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:

    <strong>So many errors...



    Well, I'm sure there are more, but I don't care to check.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Luca--



    I appreciate the alert to these errors; they (along with several others which people have found) have been corrected, although I'm sure there are a few more which will slip through from time to time. I do go through a tremendous amount of work to keep them accurate, but with up to 6 brands x 18 charts x over 70 different categories, I'm bound to make some errors.



    For what it's worth, your e-mail to me on these errors was a lot more courteous than your posting here in AI.



    --Charles

    aka BlueDjinn

    aka AAPLTalk System Shootouts editor
  • Reply 10 of 14
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    This is Future Hardware discussion? :confused:



    Moving to Current Hardware.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    tmo_bryantmo_bryan Posts: 1member
    Thanks for the notes on the errors, Luca; they have been fixed. Doing these comparisons is a huge project, almost entirely done by Charles alone, and we both appreciate the error finding done by people. :-)



    Fran441's comments: As for that piece we published on AI's forums three years ago, I will say it again: It was a mistake to have done so, and I apologize (again). I don't blame you at all for still being mad, and the whole thing was a good lesson for us at TMO. :-)



    Stoo's comment: The laptop comparisons were updated in January, after Apple's announcements. <a href="http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/"; target="_blank">http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/</a>; has the links.



    Thanks again for spotting the mistakes, Luca.
  • Reply 12 of 14
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Yeah, sorry about my post here. I sent the email a little after the post, after I had thought about it more.



    BTW, how exactly do you calculate the "equivalents" for the Pentium 4? They seem about right, I'm just wondering. I suppose there's just a simple multiplier (i.e. 1 GHz G4 = 1.5 GHz P4), but things like the Celeron, Athlon XP, and dual G4s seem to complicate things.



    [ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 14
    bluedjinnbluedjinn Posts: 56member
    [quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:

    <strong>BTW, how exactly do you calculate the "equivalents" for the Pentium 4? They seem about right, I'm just wondering. I suppose there's just a simple multiplier (i.e. 1 GHz G4 = 1.5 GHz P4), but things like the Celeron, Athlon XP, and dual G4s seem to complicate things.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Luca--apology accepted, thanks



    Re. "equialents"--check here for my rationale as well as the full chart:



    <a href="http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/processor_notes.html"; target="_blank">http://www.macobserver.com/shootouts/processor_notes.html</a>;



    My reasoning is kind of a mishmash of assorted benchmarks, combined with real-world usage, combined with P.R. bull from Intel, AMD *and* Apple, pureed together with just a dash of common sense



    I agree, the "ratings" for Celerons/Durons/G3s/etc. is a bit less "reliable" but it's the best rule-of-thumb I could come up with.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    good lord, i saw the thread title and came in here fully expecting a fiery inferno and instead it's a worthwhile discussion.



    i'll be damned



    carry on.
Sign In or Register to comment.