even laptops a 15" MBP with 512MB graphics is going to run you $3000 by the time you add applecare and tax because they don't have the option on the low cost 15" MBP even though the hardware is exactly the same. I can get a Dell 15" laptop that is slightly larger than a MBP and about the same weight with a 512MB graphics card for $1000.
i won't have the same CPU, but i don't care since i'll never see a difference. i've read intel CPU benchmarks since the 1990's and you rarely see any difference in real world performance with a slightly faster CPU
I see the difference with a faster processor because I use my machine for work, but the other poster?s point that you can?t honestly compare the processor speed, the GPU megabytes and display size and say that Macs are $2000 over priced. It?s disingenuous. Try comparing a Dell or HP with that has that same CPU, is made to be thinner than the 1.3? behemoths and has a display that is measured by more than resolution and display size.
That is not to say that one doesn?t need all that the Mac has to offer, but that is not to say that Macs are overpriced. By that logic then that $1000 15? Dell is overpriced compared to a $400 15? Dell. That $1000 machine may be too much machine for the buyer. In the end, the buyer has to make the choice that suits their needs best. For me, architecture, construction and a deeper understanding of the materials used is very important to my purchase, not just the superficial data that are seen on spec sheets.
even laptops a 15" MBP with 512MB graphics is going to run you $3000 by the time you add applecare and tax because they don't have the option on the low cost 15" MBP even though the hardware is exactly the same. I can get a Dell 15" laptop that is slightly larger than a MBP and about the same weight with a 512MB graphics card for $1000.
i won't have the same CPU, but i don't care since i'll never see a difference. i've read intel CPU benchmarks since the 1990's and you rarely see any difference in real world performance with a slightly faster CPU
Will that Dell have the same display quality? Unibody aluminum enclosure? Magsafe power connector? Slot-loading DVD burner? OS X (legally)? Multi-touch glass trackpad? Backlit keyboard? A charging system designed to extend battery life for years?
Will it come with the same quality and calibre of service as AppleCare?
Um... I'm not sure not noticing you're using a new OS is a particularly good thing. Apple are just laying the groundwork for 10.7 I guess, but sounds a little underwhelming. Not that I'm at all hyped. As long as it's more stable, quicker and more usable than Leopard, that's fine with me.
Um... I'm not sure not noticing you're using a new OS is a particularly good thing. Apple are just laying the groundwork for 10.7 I guess, but sounds a little underwhelming. Not that I'm at all hyped. As long as it's more stable, quicker and more usable than Leopard, that's fine with me.
If it?s ?more stable, quicker and more usable than Leopard? than you surely will notice that. You just don?t have the bells and whistles of previous versions dancing in front of you this time. This is a good thing and at $29 it?ll likely be the fastest uptick of upgraders by percentage Apple has ever seen. The underbelly changes are quite impressive. I can?t wait to see some real world comparisons of how things have changed. Especially after 3rd-party apps are retooled to be 64-bit, and use Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL.
I'm partial to the sound of Mitchell Lurie reeds, myself. I also like FibraCell, since they last much longer than the average cane reed and have a more consistent sound over the "life" of the reed.
I see the difference with a faster processor because I use my machine for work, but the other poster’s point that you can’t honestly compare the processor speed, the GPU megabytes and display size and say that Macs are $2000 over priced. It’s disingenuous. Try comparing a Dell or HP with that has that same CPU, is made to be thinner than the 1.3” behemoths and has a display that is measured by more than resolution and display size.
That is not to say that one doesn’t need all that the Mac has to offer, but that is not to say that Macs are overpriced. By that logic then that $1000 15” Dell is overpriced compared to a $400 15” Dell. That $1000 machine may be too much machine for the buyer. In the end, the buyer has to make the choice that suits their needs best. For me, architecture, construction and a deeper understanding of the materials used is very important to my purchase, not just the superficial data that are seen on spec sheets.
it's still $1000 cheaper even after I max it to the same CPU as the MBP and add a blu-ray rewritable optical drive and all the other upgrades. and the size difference is so small as to make it a non-issue
only thing you have to do is install everything yourself because it's unusable the way Dell ships them
How come nobody ever mentions what the cost of Snow Leopard is for people who are NOT upgrading from Leopard? And if anybody knows what that price is, I'd appreciate that info.
If it?s ?more stable, quicker and more usable than Leopard? than you surely will notice that. You just don?t have the bells and whistles of previous versions dancing in front of you this time. This is a good thing and at $29 it?ll likely be the fastest uptick of upgraders by percentage Apple has ever seen. The underbelly changes are quite impressive. I can?t wait to see some real world comparisons of how things have changed. Especially after 3rd-party apps are retooled to be 64-bit, and use Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL.
Well I'm basing it on what I've heard here, presumably from people who've used it. I think the GM is out already actually. Nevertheless, I don't think the general improvements I'd like to see (updating front row, improvements to the finder and fixing GIFs and proxies in Safari) can be regarded as "bells and whistles". I'd like to see more along the lines of what they've done with stacks. So in addition to my computer actually running faster, I'll actually be able to work faster.
They don't because that is a declining business. The money and growth is in notebooks and smartphones.
------------------
I think we all understand WHY they don't - because its increasingly becoming a commodity business - just look at the price of dells desktops. But I do WISH Apple would offer us a consumer level desktop - maybe slim tower or something - that had easily serviceable parts (upgradeable graphics, optical drive, maybe multiple hard drives, etc...) that I could run OSX on.
I love my iMac, but I've been frustrated by the aging video card and a broken slot load POS optical drive (that died well after the warranty period).
I have a need for 2 kinds of computers:
1) an elegant one for general use (iLife type stuff) - great for an iMac or mini.
2) a upgradeable utility computer for gaming, dev, etc., which is great for a commodity desktop
I just wish I could run OSX on both, and I'm not about to shell out the bucks for a Mac pro tower that will be obsolete in a couple years.
I realize that Apple doesn't cater to the upgrader - It's just wishful thinking.
you can check on the internet, but there are a few Dell models that will take the current version of OS X with no issues. The Dell mini is the one that i remember for laptops. there is a forum on anandtech where they talk about building your own hackintosh and there are a few motherboards you can buy where you can install OS X without issue as well
This is true if you are comparing a desktop tower (without a 24" HD monitor) against the iMac. Its not true if you actually compare the iMac to PC all-in-one systems.
-----------
Therein lies the rub. You have to compare apples to oranges to a certain degree, because apple doesn't offer a non all-in-one consumer desktop. This is a hole in Apple's lineup that I think more than a few mac users would like to see filled.
I generally appreciate that apple isn't necessarily interested in this market, but a few of us use inexpensive utility computers for certain tasks and would like to have one that would run OSX.
That's why you hear some complain that - in that respect - macs are too expensive. It's also why a lot of us I'm guessing, have a cheap Dell or whatever hiding somewhere under our desk.
For Apple it's a business decision and I appreciate that, but for me its a product that would perfectly augment my iMac, AppleTV, iPhone, etc.
it's still $1000 cheaper even after I max it to the same CPU as the MBP and add a blu-ray rewritable optical drive and all the other upgrades. and the size difference is so small as to make it a non-issue
only thing you have to do is install everything yourself because it's unusable the way Dell ships them
The reinstalling the OS from a new disc and then cleaning shit up is a major issue for me. i don?t want that! The very thick, heavy and weakly constructed case of other notebooks is an issue for me. I don?t want that! As I stated before, if a 1.3? plastic case with a VGA port, nonLED backlit, TN panel with poorly tested HW is right for you, then go for it. Dell, HP and other PC vendors make a lot of different machines to suit many needs, while other PC vendors, including Apple, make only a select number of models to suit a select clientele. If you don?t fit into that category then you are not their target market, but don?t think that Dell and others aren?t also selling thinner machines with higher-end tech that attempts to match Apple on HW and price, because they most certainly do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
How come nobody ever mentions what the cost of Snow Leopard is for people who are NOT upgrading from Leopard? And if anybody knows what that price is, I'd appreciate that info.
Because the price is well known. It?s $169 for the boxset that includes iLife ?09 and iWork ?09. That is the ONLY way you can upgrade directly from Tiger to Snow Leopard.
Therein lies the rub. You have to compare apples to oranges to a certain degree, because apple doesn't offer a non all-in-one consumer desktop.
They do, it?s the Mac Mini. But performance-to-performance it?s quite expensive because it uses notebook-grade components. Your point is that they don?t offer a cheap tower with desktop-grade components. That market is shrinking for consumers. In fact, Apple?s AIOs is the only desktop PC area that appears to be growing. How ?bout them Apples?
I see the difference with a faster processor because I use my machine for work, but the other poster?s point that you can?t honestly compare the processor speed, the GPU megabytes and display size and say that Macs are $2000 over priced. It?s disingenuous. Try comparing a Dell or HP with that has that same CPU, is made to be thinner than the 1.3? behemoths and has a display that is measured by more than resolution and display size.
That is not to say that one doesn?t need all that the Mac has to offer, but that is not to say that Macs are overpriced. By that logic then that $1000 15? Dell is overpriced compared to a $400 15? Dell. That $1000 machine may be too much machine for the buyer. In the end, the buyer has to make the choice that suits their needs best. For me, architecture, construction and a deeper understanding of the materials used is very important to my purchase, not just the superficial data that are seen on spec sheets.
--------------------------
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but it's not disingenuous:
Apple Macbook Pro:
15" 900p widescreen, 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo, 250gig 5400rpm hard drive, DVDRW, 4 gig RAM, backlit keyboard, wireless n
the price is 1699.00
Dell Studio 15:
15" 900p widescreen, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (closest match), 250gig 5400rpm hard drive, DVDRW, 4 gig RAM, backlit keyboard, wireless n
the price is 999.00, for a difference of 700.00
What can be argued is that OSX is better and iLife is better than what is available on Windows. The industrial design of the Apple is better. OK, but the argument that apple laptops are comparably priced to similarly configured windows laptops is the disingenuous one.
I've said before that I'll buy iMacs, minis, iPhones, Apple TVs all day long, but for a laptop that I use simply to get work done there is no choice to be made. Apple laptops are very much overpriced. For some its worth it, but for most it isn't.
More important questions... And how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
From Answerbag:
There are several factors, needless to say, even if it's the same person counting, the # of licks will differ at each attempt.
If you wanted to look at it semi-scientifically, the number of licks needed depend on these factors:
* Pressure per square inch the tongue is applied to the surface of the tootsie pop (TP)
* The average amount of square inch in contact between tongue and TP
* At what measurement from the center of the stick of the TP at which you declare that you have reached the center of the TP.
* The rotation factor of the TP - if the eater continues to lick one specific portion only to reach the center faster - or if licks are distributed evenly around the outer surface area of TP.
They do, it?s the Mac Mini. But performance-to-performance it?s quite expensive because it uses notebook-grade components. Your point is that they don?t offer a cheap tower with desktop-grade components. That market is shrinking for consumers. In fact, Apple?s AIOs is the only desktop PC area that appears to be growing. How ?bout them Apples?
The mac mini doesn't fit the criteria. It's essentially an low-end iMac without the screen.
You only quoted part of my post - yes I know that the market is shrinking - I said as much.
I only said it was wishful thinking, because that type of computer is still very useful to me.
How come nobody ever mentions what the cost of Snow Leopard is for people who are NOT upgrading from Leopard? And if anybody knows what that price is, I'd appreciate that info.
You will have to pay full price for the "box-set" from what I understand. It's $169 i think?
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but it's not disingenuous:
Apple Macbook Pro:
15" 900p widescreen, 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo, 250gig 5400rpm hard drive, DVDRW, 4 gig RAM, backlit keyboard, wireless n
the price is 1699.00
Dell Studio 15:
15" 900p widescreen, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (closest match), 250gig 5400rpm hard drive, DVDRW, 4 gig RAM, backlit keyboard, wireless n
the price is 999.00, for a difference of 700.00
What can be argued is that OSX is better and iLife is better than what is available on Windows. The industrial design of the Apple is better. OK, but the argument that apple laptops are comparably priced to similarly configured windows laptops is the disingenuous one.
I've said before that I'll buy iMacs, minis, iPhones, Apple TVs all day long, but for a laptop that I use simply to get work done there is no choice to be made. Apple laptops are very much overpriced. For some its worth it, but for most it isn't.
Your example proves my point. Your only comparing this that you thing are matches but aren't comparing like items in quality, and by extension price. That 2.4GHz CPU in the Dell, how much does it cost in comparison to the 2.53GHz in the Mac? Did you look at the FSB, the L2 or even make sure the model numbers are even in the same class? Why didn't you adjust the $700 raping by Apple for the clearly cheaper CPU in the Dell? Why are you choosing Dell's cheap line and not the one they build to compete more directly with the Macs? Furthermore, you only mentioned the display size and horizontal resolution without mentioning the display type and backlight type. These are important factors for many.
Again, if that Dell with weaker components suits your needs then get it, If a $400 Dell suits your needs then get it, if a 7 year old PC still suits your needs then keep using it, but don't pretend that because a more expensive item doesn't suit your particular needs means you are getting raped by Apple because it simply isn't true.
Comments
even laptops a 15" MBP with 512MB graphics is going to run you $3000 by the time you add applecare and tax because they don't have the option on the low cost 15" MBP even though the hardware is exactly the same. I can get a Dell 15" laptop that is slightly larger than a MBP and about the same weight with a 512MB graphics card for $1000.
i won't have the same CPU, but i don't care since i'll never see a difference. i've read intel CPU benchmarks since the 1990's and you rarely see any difference in real world performance with a slightly faster CPU
I see the difference with a faster processor because I use my machine for work, but the other poster?s point that you can?t honestly compare the processor speed, the GPU megabytes and display size and say that Macs are $2000 over priced. It?s disingenuous. Try comparing a Dell or HP with that has that same CPU, is made to be thinner than the 1.3? behemoths and has a display that is measured by more than resolution and display size.
That is not to say that one doesn?t need all that the Mac has to offer, but that is not to say that Macs are overpriced. By that logic then that $1000 15? Dell is overpriced compared to a $400 15? Dell. That $1000 machine may be too much machine for the buyer. In the end, the buyer has to make the choice that suits their needs best. For me, architecture, construction and a deeper understanding of the materials used is very important to my purchase, not just the superficial data that are seen on spec sheets.
even laptops a 15" MBP with 512MB graphics is going to run you $3000 by the time you add applecare and tax because they don't have the option on the low cost 15" MBP even though the hardware is exactly the same. I can get a Dell 15" laptop that is slightly larger than a MBP and about the same weight with a 512MB graphics card for $1000.
i won't have the same CPU, but i don't care since i'll never see a difference. i've read intel CPU benchmarks since the 1990's and you rarely see any difference in real world performance with a slightly faster CPU
Will that Dell have the same display quality? Unibody aluminum enclosure? Magsafe power connector? Slot-loading DVD burner? OS X (legally)? Multi-touch glass trackpad? Backlit keyboard? A charging system designed to extend battery life for years?
Will it come with the same quality and calibre of service as AppleCare?
Um... I'm not sure not noticing you're using a new OS is a particularly good thing. Apple are just laying the groundwork for 10.7 I guess, but sounds a little underwhelming. Not that I'm at all hyped. As long as it's more stable, quicker and more usable than Leopard, that's fine with me.
If it?s ?more stable, quicker and more usable than Leopard? than you surely will notice that. You just don?t have the bells and whistles of previous versions dancing in front of you this time. This is a good thing and at $29 it?ll likely be the fastest uptick of upgraders by percentage Apple has ever seen. The underbelly changes are quite impressive. I can?t wait to see some real world comparisons of how things have changed. Especially after 3rd-party apps are retooled to be 64-bit, and use Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL.
This is all fine and good... but what about the really important questions? Like, have you seen the new Avatar trailer?
Yeah, and what's your favorite brand sax reed?
Yeah, and what's your favorite brand sax reed?
I'm partial to the sound of Mitchell Lurie reeds, myself. I also like FibraCell, since they last much longer than the average cane reed and have a more consistent sound over the "life" of the reed.
I see the difference with a faster processor because I use my machine for work, but the other poster’s point that you can’t honestly compare the processor speed, the GPU megabytes and display size and say that Macs are $2000 over priced. It’s disingenuous. Try comparing a Dell or HP with that has that same CPU, is made to be thinner than the 1.3” behemoths and has a display that is measured by more than resolution and display size.
That is not to say that one doesn’t need all that the Mac has to offer, but that is not to say that Macs are overpriced. By that logic then that $1000 15” Dell is overpriced compared to a $400 15” Dell. That $1000 machine may be too much machine for the buyer. In the end, the buyer has to make the choice that suits their needs best. For me, architecture, construction and a deeper understanding of the materials used is very important to my purchase, not just the superficial data that are seen on spec sheets.
it's still $1000 cheaper even after I max it to the same CPU as the MBP and add a blu-ray rewritable optical drive and all the other upgrades. and the size difference is so small as to make it a non-issue
only thing you have to do is install everything yourself because it's unusable the way Dell ships them
If it?s ?more stable, quicker and more usable than Leopard? than you surely will notice that. You just don?t have the bells and whistles of previous versions dancing in front of you this time. This is a good thing and at $29 it?ll likely be the fastest uptick of upgraders by percentage Apple has ever seen. The underbelly changes are quite impressive. I can?t wait to see some real world comparisons of how things have changed. Especially after 3rd-party apps are retooled to be 64-bit, and use Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL.
Well I'm basing it on what I've heard here, presumably from people who've used it. I think the GM is out already actually. Nevertheless, I don't think the general improvements I'd like to see (updating front row, improvements to the finder and fixing GIFs and proxies in Safari) can be regarded as "bells and whistles". I'd like to see more along the lines of what they've done with stacks. So in addition to my computer actually running faster, I'll actually be able to work faster.
They don't because that is a declining business. The money and growth is in notebooks and smartphones.
------------------
I think we all understand WHY they don't - because its increasingly becoming a commodity business - just look at the price of dells desktops. But I do WISH Apple would offer us a consumer level desktop - maybe slim tower or something - that had easily serviceable parts (upgradeable graphics, optical drive, maybe multiple hard drives, etc...) that I could run OSX on.
I love my iMac, but I've been frustrated by the aging video card and a broken slot load POS optical drive (that died well after the warranty period).
I have a need for 2 kinds of computers:
1) an elegant one for general use (iLife type stuff) - great for an iMac or mini.
2) a upgradeable utility computer for gaming, dev, etc., which is great for a commodity desktop
I just wish I could run OSX on both, and I'm not about to shell out the bucks for a Mac pro tower that will be obsolete in a couple years.
I realize that Apple doesn't cater to the upgrader - It's just wishful thinking.
This is true if you are comparing a desktop tower (without a 24" HD monitor) against the iMac. Its not true if you actually compare the iMac to PC all-in-one systems.
-----------
Therein lies the rub. You have to compare apples to oranges to a certain degree, because apple doesn't offer a non all-in-one consumer desktop. This is a hole in Apple's lineup that I think more than a few mac users would like to see filled.
I generally appreciate that apple isn't necessarily interested in this market, but a few of us use inexpensive utility computers for certain tasks and would like to have one that would run OSX.
That's why you hear some complain that - in that respect - macs are too expensive. It's also why a lot of us I'm guessing, have a cheap Dell or whatever hiding somewhere under our desk.
For Apple it's a business decision and I appreciate that, but for me its a product that would perfectly augment my iMac, AppleTV, iPhone, etc.
And you know Apple would do it right.
Yeah, and what's your favorite brand sax reed?
More important questions...
it's still $1000 cheaper even after I max it to the same CPU as the MBP and add a blu-ray rewritable optical drive and all the other upgrades. and the size difference is so small as to make it a non-issue
only thing you have to do is install everything yourself because it's unusable the way Dell ships them
The reinstalling the OS from a new disc and then cleaning shit up is a major issue for me. i don?t want that! The very thick, heavy and weakly constructed case of other notebooks is an issue for me. I don?t want that! As I stated before, if a 1.3? plastic case with a VGA port, nonLED backlit, TN panel with poorly tested HW is right for you, then go for it. Dell, HP and other PC vendors make a lot of different machines to suit many needs, while other PC vendors, including Apple, make only a select number of models to suit a select clientele. If you don?t fit into that category then you are not their target market, but don?t think that Dell and others aren?t also selling thinner machines with higher-end tech that attempts to match Apple on HW and price, because they most certainly do.
How come nobody ever mentions what the cost of Snow Leopard is for people who are NOT upgrading from Leopard? And if anybody knows what that price is, I'd appreciate that info.
Because the price is well known. It?s $169 for the boxset that includes iLife ?09 and iWork ?09. That is the ONLY way you can upgrade directly from Tiger to Snow Leopard.
Therein lies the rub. You have to compare apples to oranges to a certain degree, because apple doesn't offer a non all-in-one consumer desktop.
They do, it?s the Mac Mini. But performance-to-performance it?s quite expensive because it uses notebook-grade components. Your point is that they don?t offer a cheap tower with desktop-grade components. That market is shrinking for consumers. In fact, Apple?s AIOs is the only desktop PC area that appears to be growing. How ?bout them Apples?
I see the difference with a faster processor because I use my machine for work, but the other poster?s point that you can?t honestly compare the processor speed, the GPU megabytes and display size and say that Macs are $2000 over priced. It?s disingenuous. Try comparing a Dell or HP with that has that same CPU, is made to be thinner than the 1.3? behemoths and has a display that is measured by more than resolution and display size.
That is not to say that one doesn?t need all that the Mac has to offer, but that is not to say that Macs are overpriced. By that logic then that $1000 15? Dell is overpriced compared to a $400 15? Dell. That $1000 machine may be too much machine for the buyer. In the end, the buyer has to make the choice that suits their needs best. For me, architecture, construction and a deeper understanding of the materials used is very important to my purchase, not just the superficial data that are seen on spec sheets.
--------------------------
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but it's not disingenuous:
Apple Macbook Pro:
15" 900p widescreen, 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo, 250gig 5400rpm hard drive, DVDRW, 4 gig RAM, backlit keyboard, wireless n
the price is 1699.00
Dell Studio 15:
15" 900p widescreen, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (closest match), 250gig 5400rpm hard drive, DVDRW, 4 gig RAM, backlit keyboard, wireless n
the price is 999.00, for a difference of 700.00
What can be argued is that OSX is better and iLife is better than what is available on Windows. The industrial design of the Apple is better. OK, but the argument that apple laptops are comparably priced to similarly configured windows laptops is the disingenuous one.
I've said before that I'll buy iMacs, minis, iPhones, Apple TVs all day long, but for a laptop that I use simply to get work done there is no choice to be made. Apple laptops are very much overpriced. For some its worth it, but for most it isn't.
More important questions...
From Answerbag:
There are several factors, needless to say, even if it's the same person counting, the # of licks will differ at each attempt.
If you wanted to look at it semi-scientifically, the number of licks needed depend on these factors:
* Pressure per square inch the tongue is applied to the surface of the tootsie pop (TP)
* The average amount of square inch in contact between tongue and TP
* At what measurement from the center of the stick of the TP at which you declare that you have reached the center of the TP.
* The rotation factor of the TP - if the eater continues to lick one specific portion only to reach the center faster - or if licks are distributed evenly around the outer surface area of TP.
And to a lesser extent:
* Ambient temperature
* Use of teeth / or lack of teeth of eater
* Hunger of TP eater
* Boredom of TP eater
* Age of TP
They do, it?s the Mac Mini. But performance-to-performance it?s quite expensive because it uses notebook-grade components. Your point is that they don?t offer a cheap tower with desktop-grade components. That market is shrinking for consumers. In fact, Apple?s AIOs is the only desktop PC area that appears to be growing. How ?bout them Apples?
The mac mini doesn't fit the criteria. It's essentially an low-end iMac without the screen.
You only quoted part of my post - yes I know that the market is shrinking - I said as much.
I only said it was wishful thinking, because that type of computer is still very useful to me.
How come nobody ever mentions what the cost of Snow Leopard is for people who are NOT upgrading from Leopard? And if anybody knows what that price is, I'd appreciate that info.
You will have to pay full price for the "box-set" from what I understand. It's $169 i think?
--------------------------
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but it's not disingenuous:
Apple Macbook Pro:
15" 900p widescreen, 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo, 250gig 5400rpm hard drive, DVDRW, 4 gig RAM, backlit keyboard, wireless n
the price is 1699.00
Dell Studio 15:
15" 900p widescreen, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (closest match), 250gig 5400rpm hard drive, DVDRW, 4 gig RAM, backlit keyboard, wireless n
the price is 999.00, for a difference of 700.00
What can be argued is that OSX is better and iLife is better than what is available on Windows. The industrial design of the Apple is better. OK, but the argument that apple laptops are comparably priced to similarly configured windows laptops is the disingenuous one.
I've said before that I'll buy iMacs, minis, iPhones, Apple TVs all day long, but for a laptop that I use simply to get work done there is no choice to be made. Apple laptops are very much overpriced. For some its worth it, but for most it isn't.
Your example proves my point. Your only comparing this that you thing are matches but aren't comparing like items in quality, and by extension price. That 2.4GHz CPU in the Dell, how much does it cost in comparison to the 2.53GHz in the Mac? Did you look at the FSB, the L2 or even make sure the model numbers are even in the same class? Why didn't you adjust the $700 raping by Apple for the clearly cheaper CPU in the Dell? Why are you choosing Dell's cheap line and not the one they build to compete more directly with the Macs? Furthermore, you only mentioned the display size and horizontal resolution without mentioning the display type and backlight type. These are important factors for many.
Again, if that Dell with weaker components suits your needs then get it, If a $400 Dell suits your needs then get it, if a 7 year old PC still suits your needs then keep using it, but don't pretend that because a more expensive item doesn't suit your particular needs means you are getting raped by Apple because it simply isn't true.