In the end, its just a matter of who you're comfortable with. I'm personally more comfortable knowing the exact parts in all my machines and what to replace them with, while you're more comfortable not having to worry about it at all and pay the premium for that luxury.
In my case, and in many others, I suspect, I treat my computer like my car. I don't care HOW it works, only that it DOES work and gives me the least amount of trouble and the most amount of pleasure possible. That's why I choose Mac.
Actually, many of my machines are AMD, not Intel xD. Although the new Core i7s released last money are pretty tempting...
If you want to use your rather flawed analogy, then put it in this perspective - I love Lexus. They are amazing machines, sleek, luxurious, and sexy. Its one of my ultimate dream cars.... but I don't have anywhere NEAR the money to be able to afford one. Sure, they purr like kittens, but they cost just too much to come anywhere close to justifiable.
Instead, I look at my lower budget and think to myself, "What exactly do I need a car for?" All I really need is something that will be reliable, last a long time, and simply get me to where I want to go. That is when I look at the Fords, Hondas, and Toyotas of the world... the Windows 7 PCs.
They're not my dream machines, but they get the job done well and I'm happy with them.
Spoken by the person who holds a Lexus as his dream car.
Jeez, where's your evidence of any of this? I'm at least speaking from the perspective of having used both for quite a long time, and have to say that both machines have their flaws as well as their strong points. Since you apparently like playing this game:
1. You made my point quite clear - Macs are really just PCs in nice enclosures. When you get to the crux of it, Macs really don't differentiate between PCs much anymore. Artificial differences, like the use of EFI as opposed to BIOS, are really the only things, and that's because Apple likes to be stubborn about that.
2. This opinion, I can promise you, was pulled directly out of your butt and slapped onto the keyboard. Of course there are adherent application guidelines - why do you think Safari 3 on Windows failed so miserably? Apple thought it would be smart to port over with Mac guidelines, and everyone rejected it, even Mac users that use Windows. iTunes gets a lot of heat because of its Carbon-based origins and Apples refusal to build a native application. There's obviously less enforcement about this rule only because there's so much more software available for Windows, but ever since Vista and now Windows 7, developers have been strict about following UAC and UI interface guidelines in order to make their application blend well with the operating system.
DLLs? They're just the plist equivilant on a Mac. Management could be better, but under Windows 7, its not the issue it used to be. Haven't had a single problem in almost a year since using the beta.
Antiquated file system? Let me ask you, what exactly is the advantage of HFS+ over NTFS? Wow, now I can put quotation marks in my file names. Hurrah. If Apple decided to implement something like ZFS into its operating systems, you might have an argument there. But alas, they continue to use their own choice that doesn't operate nicely with Windows or other Unix-based operating systems like BSD or Linux.
Bad memory management, corruption, no integration with other service applications, blah blah blah. Explain what you mean by "bad memory management." Have you used a PC since Windows 98? I've got a hint for you - its gotten better xD. And "no integration with other service applications" I don't understand in the least. You just made that term up, didn't you? Media Center integrates with Home Server, allowing you to stream recorded TV shows to any computer you own. Libraries integrates with Home Group, allowing you to find any file on any networked PC, similar to Mac's spotlight integration with network PCs first introduced in Snow Leopard. Windows Live Movie Maker lets you create videos and upload them directly to YouTube. Windows Live Essentials integrates with your Live account, allowing you to post your photos for all to see and sync them back with your PC, ala iLife.
You're chasing a red haring, my friend. No matter how you look at it, Windows 7 is a very comparable operating system. Its obviously not going to change your mind, but in the minds of anyone who's actually tried it, its a fairly decent offering.
Looked from a far away distance, everything looks the same. It takes a sharper mind than yours to see the, quite significant difference, I am afraid.
Spoken by the person who holds a Lexus as his dream car.
Nuff said.
BWM, Fierro, Ferrari, Bugati, substitute with whatever one you'd like. It was your flawed analogy to begin with, mind you.
I look at it simply - say I wanted to build a render farm of Core i7 machines. I could buy several Mac Pros at $2400+ each, or Xserves at $2999+ each, and run something like Compressor ($800). *OR* I could buy several Windows 7 machines for $1200 with the same specs and run Pro Coder 3 ($400) and achieve the same net effect.
That's one cost-saving advantage Apple doesn't have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta
Looked from a far away distance, everything looks the same. It takes a sharper mind than yours to see the, quite significant difference, I am afraid.
How many times must I repeat myself? I'm a Mac user. I've been using one since February of last year. It serves its purpose well and have never had a problem with it. I also have a PC with Windows 7 on it, used primarily as my main OS and gaming machine, which I plan to upgrade to Core i7 sometime next year. I've never had a problem with it. Also in my care is a Dell Dimension 2400, a 5-year-old PC running Windows 7 beautifully. Its the perfect system for my mother to read her email and surf the web without worry about security or popups.
So guess what? Windows 7 is working great, and the Mac is working great. Why? Because they're *both* great in their own right, and each has a specific purpose. If my mother were doing multimedia stuff, I'd switch her to the Mac. Since she doesn't, there's no reason to spend $1200+ on a computer for her, when her old $600 does just a good of a job even 5 years later.
It is now the same for me with Mac/PC's. In order to get the raw performance of a i7 based PC which are in the $800 range the only choice for new is a $2500 Mac. .
Show me, with links, the exact specs you get with $800 for PC. Include everything, monitor, etc. ... then maybe I'll have to rethink my position. Until then it's all just opinions, not facts.
No one said it was. The Mac is doing exceptionally well and continues to outpace its other direct competitors (HP, Dell...) year after year. The profit margins on a Mac are so high that Apple is just racking in all the money, while other manufacturers are passing off major decreases in sales as a "good thing," saying they haven't lost as much money as they thought they would.
Still, you can't use the word "dominate" when describing the Macintosh.
Please don't be like TeckDud and "put words in my mouth". Show me where I used the word "dominate". I'm waiting.
Show me, with links, the exact specs you get with $800 for PC. Include everything, monitor, etc. ... then maybe I'll have to rethink my position. Until then it's all just opinions, not facts.
Why does he have to include a monitor? What if he's just replacing or re-purposing an old computer, and wants to use the same peripherals? That's not something you can overlook - that's an advantage PCs have over Macs. In short, you only have to buy the parts you actually need, rather than the package as a whole.
There's no doubt that Apple makes excellent All-In-One machines, and for many, if not most users, that's really all you need if you can handle the extra cost. But for practical purposes, they don't work for a lot of people. If I wanted to upgrade my PC to Core i7, I would just need a new motherboard, RAM, and the processor, all totaling around $500. But for a Mac, I'd have to buy a brand new tower, since Apple won't sell me motherboards or CPUs. You're looking at $2700 minimum.
Show me, with links, the exact specs you get with $800 for PC. Include everything, monitor, etc. ... then maybe I'll have to rethink my position. Until then it's all just opinions, not facts.
We've seen this a thousand times before. You can always build a cheaper PC.
He'll pull the same speed CPU as te Xeon used in the Mac Pro but won't address the extra features that it has. He'll choose the cheapest MoBo instead of comparing it to a high-end MoBo designed for a proper workstation. None of it will be the quality that Apple would offer and support will have to come from each differet componet vendor on your dime if something has to be mailed in to be replaced (assuming you correctly diagnosed the faulty part).
That is all well and good if that is what he wants, but it doesn't fit most people's needs. Even if Apple made the elusive xMac it would still be more than expensive than any home built PC do to support costs, Green costs, etc.
Why does he have to include a monitor? What if he's just replacing or re-purposing an old computer, and wants to use the same peripherals? That's not something you can overlook - that's an advantage PCs have over Macs. In short, you only have to buy the parts you actually need, rather than the package as a whole.
I would have thought that would be obvious, but not to you , I guess. If you're going to compare prices between two items, it MIGHT be fair to point out everything you get with both choices, no?
I would have thought that would be obvious, but not to you , I guess. If you're going to compare prices between two items, it MIGHT be fair to point out everything you get with both choices, no?
But it is fair, my friend. Its indeed fair to compare the fact that you can build a Windows 7 PC with comparable, if not equal, specs to a Mac Pro tower for far less money. Its also fair to point out the fact that Apple only sells three "headless" devices: the Mac Pro ($2700), the Xserve ($3000), or the Mac Mini ($600), none of which hit the sweet spot of a mid-range Mac, something people have been begging for for years.
I could look around my office and see a beautiful 24" display that doubles as an HDTV. I very much love that screen, and would like a brand new system that will let me edit video and play my games on it. On the Mac side, the *minimum* offering would have to be a Mac Pro, which is extremely expensive and out of my league. On the other hand, I have a working PC case and power supply, along with some spare hard drives. For a minimal investment, I could tear apart the guts of that computer, put in new components, and be up and running with a Windows 7 tower in no time. Why should I spend extra money for an All-In-One, and essentially buy a new monitor that is permanently tied to that single computer, when I can just use what I already own and save $$$?
If I were in a situation that required me to use Macs, for example a production house that uses Final Cut Studio exclusively, then obviously the Mac would be the only choice. If I were also in a situation where a friend who is willing to spend money for a machine that he can rely on with excellent customer support, I would also steer him towards Apple. But if that same friend asked me about a $600 laptop he wanted or a $300 netbook and both were running Windows 7, I'd say that's plenty that he needs and will still love it.
BWM, Fierro, Ferrari, Bugati, substitute with whatever one you'd like. It was your flawed analogy to begin with, mind you.
I look at it simply - say I wanted to build a render farm of Core i7 machines. I could buy several Mac Pros at $2400+ each, or Xserves at $2999+ each, and run something like Compressor ($800). *OR* I could buy several Windows 7 machines for $1200 with the same specs and run Pro Coder 3 ($400) and achieve the same net effect.
That's one cost-saving advantage Apple doesn't have.
Even if your prices are correct your conclusion is wrong, especially when developers start taking advantage of grand central dispatch and OpenCL for leveraging multiple cores. By then you will be able to achieve with one Mac Pro the same performance as multiple PC machines.
That has more to do with which OEM you do business with. In this case, Microsoft wouldn't be of any help to you regardless. The ones you'd have to compare to with Apple are the Dells and HPs of the world.
I do agree that Apple's technical support seems to be one of the best in the industry. As long as you're under warranty, they'll fix just about any issue you have with no questions asked. I love how they swapped out my original iPhone 3G last year after I complained about poor cellular reception. I didn't even need to turn the phone on to show them - they just replaced it on the spot! That's good customer service.
However, since I'm capable of building my own systems, I've found it more cost-effective to build the machine myself and service any replacements myself. I've saved money, but at the cost of me figuring out all my issues. That works for me. And what you do works for you.
In the end, its just a matter of who you're comfortable with. I'm personally more comfortable knowing the exact parts in all my machines and what to replace them with, while you're more comfortable not having to worry about it at all and pay the premium for that luxury.
Exactly. I don't have time to do what you do, and Apple does it very well with (for) me.
But it is fair, my friend. Its indeed fair to compare the fact that you can build a Windows 7 PC with comparable, if not equal, specs to a Mac Pro tower for far less money.
Show me a high-end workstation from any major PC vendor that is cheaper than off the shelf cheap components? You are paying for many thing when you buy a pre-made PC. If a PC vendor doesn't offer the machine you want you go to the next one or build your own.
Why should I spend extra money for an All-In-One, and essentially buy a new monitor that is permanently tied to that single computer, when I can just use what I already own and save $$$?
Because you won't be saving a lot of money but you will lose software-hardware integration, support and reliability.
Even if your prices are correct your conclusion is wrong, especially when developers start taking advantage of grand central dispatch and OpenCL for leveraging multiple cores. By then you will be able to achieve with one Mac Pro the same performance as multiple PC machines.
Eh, I've seen what similar technologies, like CUDA and Stream, can do, and at the moment I'm not impressed. The most it does is offload some of the work off the CPU, allowing you to maybe push a few more tasks simultaneously. It will be useful going forward, but with CPUs as powerful as they are these days, the difference is marginal. Besides, OpenCL is just that - an open standard. There's nothing preventing Microsoft from integrating it in the future.
You're computer will be more efficient, but it won't have the same performance as "multiple PC machines" in a single Mac Pro. That's just silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantz
Exactly. I don't have time to do what you do, and Apple does it very well with (for) me.
M$oft, HP and others, not so.
And you know what? I couldn't agree with you more. I said earlier that I'm *very* impressed how Apple handled my iPhone 3G replacement when I told them the reception was bad. I didn't even need to prove it to them, they just fixed the problem by giving me a new phone. If that's the kind of customer care they offer with their computers, I'd say Mac owners are very fortunate ^_^.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Show me a high-end workstation from any major PC vendor that is cheaper than off the shelf cheap components? You are paying for many thing when you buy a pre-made PC. If a PC vendor doesn't offer the machine you want you go to the next one or build your own.
I think you read my post wrong, friend. I said you can *build* machines far cheaper than anyone else, Apple or others. I didn't say off-the-shelf PCs are cheaper than the ones you build yourself, although you can still buy them for less than typical high-end Macs, and you have the choice of what you actually want to buy. You can save about $300 and buy it without a monitor, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta
Because you won't be saving a lot of money but you will lose software-hardware integration, support and reliability.
Again with this "software-hardware integration" FUD. You're not making yourself clear about this, despite being called out on it numerous times now. Imagine the integration an iPhone has with iTunes, and how seamless they synchronize together. Now imagine being able to do that with ANY device you own, and have just as seamless of an experience. That's what Windows 7's new Sync Center and Devices categories do. They go beyond iTunes because they work with anything. This same technology is built into "Microsoft Sync" enabled vehicles, like the ones built into Fords. Either through a usb connector or bluetooth, you can hook up ANY media playback device to the car and it just works. Phones, MP3 players, you name it.
And again with the reliability crap. Read the reviews, my friend. Try it for yourself. Windows 7 is *MUCH* more reliable than any of its predecessors, and is damn near as stable as a Mac. I can go weeks without rebooting my Windows box, similar how I could go weeks with my Mac without rebooting. And don't kid yourself... Macs have to reboot sometimes too.
But it is fair, my friend. Its indeed fair to compare the fact that you can build a Windows 7 PC with comparable, if not equal, specs to a Mac Pro tower for far less money. Its also fair to point out the fact that Apple only sells three "headless" devices: the Mac Pro ($2700), the Xserve ($3000), or the Mac Mini ($600), none of which hit the sweet spot of a mid-range Mac, something people have been begging for for years.
If you read my earlier post you will note it was in response to an earlier poster who claimed : "is now the same for me with Mac/PC's. In order to get the raw performance of a i7 based PC which are in the $800 range the only choice for new is a $2500 Mac".
All I continue to ask for is to give me specific info, with links , instead of your opinion. Is that too much to ask for? "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.
Comments
Been an Apple user since lle, (very nearly a Lisa owner) also one of the very first UK Mac owners in 1984. Now I think my time with Apple is over.
Apple wont miss me, but I will miss Apple.
I must be missing something ... if you're going to miss Apple ... why are you leaving? ..... care to explain?
I mean what is original anymore? Really?
How well technology is/ideas are implemented.
Sorry to everyone if my writing was far from perfect, I was at work and extremely busy today.
I'm impressed, even 'tho you were "at work and extremely busy today" you found time to read and post many, many times. Your boss must be so proud.
In the end, its just a matter of who you're comfortable with. I'm personally more comfortable knowing the exact parts in all my machines and what to replace them with, while you're more comfortable not having to worry about it at all and pay the premium for that luxury.
In my case, and in many others, I suspect, I treat my computer like my car. I don't care HOW it works, only that it DOES work and gives me the least amount of trouble and the most amount of pleasure possible. That's why I choose Mac.
Actually, many of my machines are AMD, not Intel xD. Although the new Core i7s released last money are pretty tempting...
If you want to use your rather flawed analogy, then put it in this perspective - I love Lexus. They are amazing machines, sleek, luxurious, and sexy. Its one of my ultimate dream cars.... but I don't have anywhere NEAR the money to be able to afford one. Sure, they purr like kittens, but they cost just too much to come anywhere close to justifiable.
Instead, I look at my lower budget and think to myself, "What exactly do I need a car for?" All I really need is something that will be reliable, last a long time, and simply get me to where I want to go. That is when I look at the Fords, Hondas, and Toyotas of the world... the Windows 7 PCs.
They're not my dream machines, but they get the job done well and I'm happy with them.
Spoken by the person who holds a Lexus as his dream car.
Nuff said.
Jeez, where's your evidence of any of this? I'm at least speaking from the perspective of having used both for quite a long time, and have to say that both machines have their flaws as well as their strong points. Since you apparently like playing this game:
1. You made my point quite clear - Macs are really just PCs in nice enclosures. When you get to the crux of it, Macs really don't differentiate between PCs much anymore. Artificial differences, like the use of EFI as opposed to BIOS, are really the only things, and that's because Apple likes to be stubborn about that.
2. This opinion, I can promise you, was pulled directly out of your butt and slapped onto the keyboard. Of course there are adherent application guidelines - why do you think Safari 3 on Windows failed so miserably? Apple thought it would be smart to port over with Mac guidelines, and everyone rejected it, even Mac users that use Windows. iTunes gets a lot of heat because of its Carbon-based origins and Apples refusal to build a native application. There's obviously less enforcement about this rule only because there's so much more software available for Windows, but ever since Vista and now Windows 7, developers have been strict about following UAC and UI interface guidelines in order to make their application blend well with the operating system.
DLLs? They're just the plist equivilant on a Mac. Management could be better, but under Windows 7, its not the issue it used to be. Haven't had a single problem in almost a year since using the beta.
Antiquated file system? Let me ask you, what exactly is the advantage of HFS+ over NTFS? Wow, now I can put quotation marks in my file names. Hurrah. If Apple decided to implement something like ZFS into its operating systems, you might have an argument there. But alas, they continue to use their own choice that doesn't operate nicely with Windows or other Unix-based operating systems like BSD or Linux.
Bad memory management, corruption, no integration with other service applications, blah blah blah. Explain what you mean by "bad memory management." Have you used a PC since Windows 98? I've got a hint for you - its gotten better xD. And "no integration with other service applications" I don't understand in the least. You just made that term up, didn't you? Media Center integrates with Home Server, allowing you to stream recorded TV shows to any computer you own. Libraries integrates with Home Group, allowing you to find any file on any networked PC, similar to Mac's spotlight integration with network PCs first introduced in Snow Leopard. Windows Live Movie Maker lets you create videos and upload them directly to YouTube. Windows Live Essentials integrates with your Live account, allowing you to post your photos for all to see and sync them back with your PC, ala iLife.
You're chasing a red haring, my friend. No matter how you look at it, Windows 7 is a very comparable operating system. Its obviously not going to change your mind, but in the minds of anyone who's actually tried it, its a fairly decent offering.
Looked from a far away distance, everything looks the same. It takes a sharper mind than yours to see the, quite significant difference, I am afraid.
Spoken by the person who holds a Lexus as his dream car.
Nuff said.
BWM, Fierro, Ferrari, Bugati, substitute with whatever one you'd like. It was your flawed analogy to begin with, mind you.
I look at it simply - say I wanted to build a render farm of Core i7 machines. I could buy several Mac Pros at $2400+ each, or Xserves at $2999+ each, and run something like Compressor ($800). *OR* I could buy several Windows 7 machines for $1200 with the same specs and run Pro Coder 3 ($400) and achieve the same net effect.
That's one cost-saving advantage Apple doesn't have.
Looked from a far away distance, everything looks the same. It takes a sharper mind than yours to see the, quite significant difference, I am afraid.
How many times must I repeat myself? I'm a Mac user. I've been using one since February of last year. It serves its purpose well and have never had a problem with it. I also have a PC with Windows 7 on it, used primarily as my main OS and gaming machine, which I plan to upgrade to Core i7 sometime next year. I've never had a problem with it. Also in my care is a Dell Dimension 2400, a 5-year-old PC running Windows 7 beautifully. Its the perfect system for my mother to read her email and surf the web without worry about security or popups.
So guess what? Windows 7 is working great, and the Mac is working great. Why? Because they're *both* great in their own right, and each has a specific purpose. If my mother were doing multimedia stuff, I'd switch her to the Mac. Since she doesn't, there's no reason to spend $1200+ on a computer for her, when her old $600 does just a good of a job even 5 years later.
It is now the same for me with Mac/PC's. In order to get the raw performance of a i7 based PC which are in the $800 range the only choice for new is a $2500 Mac. .
Show me, with links, the exact specs you get with $800 for PC. Include everything, monitor, etc. ... then maybe I'll have to rethink my position. Until then it's all just opinions, not facts.
No one said it was. The Mac is doing exceptionally well and continues to outpace its other direct competitors (HP, Dell...) year after year. The profit margins on a Mac are so high that Apple is just racking in all the money, while other manufacturers are passing off major decreases in sales as a "good thing," saying they haven't lost as much money as they thought they would.
Still, you can't use the word "dominate" when describing the Macintosh.
Please don't be like TeckDud and "put words in my mouth". Show me where I used the word "dominate". I'm waiting.
Show me, with links, the exact specs you get with $800 for PC. Include everything, monitor, etc. ... then maybe I'll have to rethink my position. Until then it's all just opinions, not facts.
Why does he have to include a monitor? What if he's just replacing or re-purposing an old computer, and wants to use the same peripherals? That's not something you can overlook - that's an advantage PCs have over Macs. In short, you only have to buy the parts you actually need, rather than the package as a whole.
There's no doubt that Apple makes excellent All-In-One machines, and for many, if not most users, that's really all you need if you can handle the extra cost. But for practical purposes, they don't work for a lot of people. If I wanted to upgrade my PC to Core i7, I would just need a new motherboard, RAM, and the processor, all totaling around $500. But for a Mac, I'd have to buy a brand new tower, since Apple won't sell me motherboards or CPUs. You're looking at $2700 minimum.
Show me, with links, the exact specs you get with $800 for PC. Include everything, monitor, etc. ... then maybe I'll have to rethink my position. Until then it's all just opinions, not facts.
We've seen this a thousand times before. You can always build a cheaper PC.
He'll pull the same speed CPU as te Xeon used in the Mac Pro but won't address the extra features that it has. He'll choose the cheapest MoBo instead of comparing it to a high-end MoBo designed for a proper workstation. None of it will be the quality that Apple would offer and support will have to come from each differet componet vendor on your dime if something has to be mailed in to be replaced (assuming you correctly diagnosed the faulty part).
That is all well and good if that is what he wants, but it doesn't fit most people's needs. Even if Apple made the elusive xMac it would still be more than expensive than any home built PC do to support costs, Green costs, etc.
Why does he have to include a monitor? What if he's just replacing or re-purposing an old computer, and wants to use the same peripherals? That's not something you can overlook - that's an advantage PCs have over Macs. In short, you only have to buy the parts you actually need, rather than the package as a whole.
I would have thought that would be obvious, but not to you , I guess. If you're going to compare prices between two items, it MIGHT be fair to point out everything you get with both choices, no?
I would have thought that would be obvious, but not to you , I guess. If you're going to compare prices between two items, it MIGHT be fair to point out everything you get with both choices, no?
But it is fair, my friend. Its indeed fair to compare the fact that you can build a Windows 7 PC with comparable, if not equal, specs to a Mac Pro tower for far less money. Its also fair to point out the fact that Apple only sells three "headless" devices: the Mac Pro ($2700), the Xserve ($3000), or the Mac Mini ($600), none of which hit the sweet spot of a mid-range Mac, something people have been begging for for years.
I could look around my office and see a beautiful 24" display that doubles as an HDTV. I very much love that screen, and would like a brand new system that will let me edit video and play my games on it. On the Mac side, the *minimum* offering would have to be a Mac Pro, which is extremely expensive and out of my league. On the other hand, I have a working PC case and power supply, along with some spare hard drives. For a minimal investment, I could tear apart the guts of that computer, put in new components, and be up and running with a Windows 7 tower in no time. Why should I spend extra money for an All-In-One, and essentially buy a new monitor that is permanently tied to that single computer, when I can just use what I already own and save $$$?
If I were in a situation that required me to use Macs, for example a production house that uses Final Cut Studio exclusively, then obviously the Mac would be the only choice. If I were also in a situation where a friend who is willing to spend money for a machine that he can rely on with excellent customer support, I would also steer him towards Apple. But if that same friend asked me about a $600 laptop he wanted or a $300 netbook and both were running Windows 7, I'd say that's plenty that he needs and will still love it.
BWM, Fierro, Ferrari, Bugati, substitute with whatever one you'd like. It was your flawed analogy to begin with, mind you.
I look at it simply - say I wanted to build a render farm of Core i7 machines. I could buy several Mac Pros at $2400+ each, or Xserves at $2999+ each, and run something like Compressor ($800). *OR* I could buy several Windows 7 machines for $1200 with the same specs and run Pro Coder 3 ($400) and achieve the same net effect.
That's one cost-saving advantage Apple doesn't have.
Even if your prices are correct your conclusion is wrong, especially when developers start taking advantage of grand central dispatch and OpenCL for leveraging multiple cores. By then you will be able to achieve with one Mac Pro the same performance as multiple PC machines.
That has more to do with which OEM you do business with. In this case, Microsoft wouldn't be of any help to you regardless. The ones you'd have to compare to with Apple are the Dells and HPs of the world.
I do agree that Apple's technical support seems to be one of the best in the industry. As long as you're under warranty, they'll fix just about any issue you have with no questions asked. I love how they swapped out my original iPhone 3G last year after I complained about poor cellular reception. I didn't even need to turn the phone on to show them - they just replaced it on the spot! That's good customer service.
However, since I'm capable of building my own systems, I've found it more cost-effective to build the machine myself and service any replacements myself. I've saved money, but at the cost of me figuring out all my issues. That works for me. And what you do works for you.
In the end, its just a matter of who you're comfortable with. I'm personally more comfortable knowing the exact parts in all my machines and what to replace them with, while you're more comfortable not having to worry about it at all and pay the premium for that luxury.
Exactly. I don't have time to do what you do, and Apple does it very well with (for) me.
M$oft, HP and others, not so.
But it is fair, my friend. Its indeed fair to compare the fact that you can build a Windows 7 PC with comparable, if not equal, specs to a Mac Pro tower for far less money.
Show me a high-end workstation from any major PC vendor that is cheaper than off the shelf cheap components? You are paying for many thing when you buy a pre-made PC. If a PC vendor doesn't offer the machine you want you go to the next one or build your own.
Why should I spend extra money for an All-In-One, and essentially buy a new monitor that is permanently tied to that single computer, when I can just use what I already own and save $$$?
Because you won't be saving a lot of money but you will lose software-hardware integration, support and reliability.
Even if your prices are correct your conclusion is wrong, especially when developers start taking advantage of grand central dispatch and OpenCL for leveraging multiple cores. By then you will be able to achieve with one Mac Pro the same performance as multiple PC machines.
Eh, I've seen what similar technologies, like CUDA and Stream, can do, and at the moment I'm not impressed. The most it does is offload some of the work off the CPU, allowing you to maybe push a few more tasks simultaneously. It will be useful going forward, but with CPUs as powerful as they are these days, the difference is marginal. Besides, OpenCL is just that - an open standard. There's nothing preventing Microsoft from integrating it in the future.
You're computer will be more efficient, but it won't have the same performance as "multiple PC machines" in a single Mac Pro. That's just silly.
Exactly. I don't have time to do what you do, and Apple does it very well with (for) me.
M$oft, HP and others, not so.
And you know what? I couldn't agree with you more. I said earlier that I'm *very* impressed how Apple handled my iPhone 3G replacement when I told them the reception was bad. I didn't even need to prove it to them, they just fixed the problem by giving me a new phone. If that's the kind of customer care they offer with their computers, I'd say Mac owners are very fortunate ^_^.
Show me a high-end workstation from any major PC vendor that is cheaper than off the shelf cheap components? You are paying for many thing when you buy a pre-made PC. If a PC vendor doesn't offer the machine you want you go to the next one or build your own.
I think you read my post wrong, friend. I said you can *build* machines far cheaper than anyone else, Apple or others. I didn't say off-the-shelf PCs are cheaper than the ones you build yourself, although you can still buy them for less than typical high-end Macs, and you have the choice of what you actually want to buy. You can save about $300 and buy it without a monitor, for example.
Because you won't be saving a lot of money but you will lose software-hardware integration, support and reliability.
Again with this "software-hardware integration" FUD. You're not making yourself clear about this, despite being called out on it numerous times now. Imagine the integration an iPhone has with iTunes, and how seamless they synchronize together. Now imagine being able to do that with ANY device you own, and have just as seamless of an experience. That's what Windows 7's new Sync Center and Devices categories do. They go beyond iTunes because they work with anything. This same technology is built into "Microsoft Sync" enabled vehicles, like the ones built into Fords. Either through a usb connector or bluetooth, you can hook up ANY media playback device to the car and it just works. Phones, MP3 players, you name it.
And again with the reliability crap. Read the reviews, my friend. Try it for yourself. Windows 7 is *MUCH* more reliable than any of its predecessors, and is damn near as stable as a Mac. I can go weeks without rebooting my Windows box, similar how I could go weeks with my Mac without rebooting. And don't kid yourself... Macs have to reboot sometimes too.
But it is fair, my friend. Its indeed fair to compare the fact that you can build a Windows 7 PC with comparable, if not equal, specs to a Mac Pro tower for far less money. Its also fair to point out the fact that Apple only sells three "headless" devices: the Mac Pro ($2700), the Xserve ($3000), or the Mac Mini ($600), none of which hit the sweet spot of a mid-range Mac, something people have been begging for for years.
If you read my earlier post you will note it was in response to an earlier poster who claimed : "is now the same for me with Mac/PC's. In order to get the raw performance of a i7 based PC which are in the $800 range the only choice for new is a $2500 Mac".
All I continue to ask for is to give me specific info, with links , instead of your opinion. Is that too much to ask for? "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.
Exactly... if you are content with crappiness but livable then buy a Wintel plastic box.
If you are the kind of person who is intelligent enough to appreciate a BMW and would never dare comparing it to a POS Mustang then buy a mac.
There are levels of class, you know...
You think what car you drive and what computer you own determines your level of class?
Pretty sad...