New Apple vs. PC "Price Comparison"
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.
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
--
Ed
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.
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.
There simply just isn't anything like it on the PC side.
i.e there is no real comparison. Go and play with XP Lego edition and stop worrying what 5% of us think
Thanks Apple.
<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
Moving to Current Hardware.
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.
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>
<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.
i'll be damned
carry on.