Whew, thanks for the heads-up. I did not realize we were in a depression! I'll sell all my AAPL tomorrow. And, buy and hold MSFT for 5 years, riding out the recessi..... er..... depression.
Hey, hold MSFT for ten years and you might get stellar returns of selling your stock for 50% less what you paid for it. Seriously, it is sad to see what has happened since Windows 98 was released to the once-great Microsoft Corporation and it's market value.
To me, true meaning of that sentence is "I guess I'm not silly enough to buy overpriced Mac and think I'm suddenly cool just because I own it".
Of course, some people around here can't recognize irony if it does not come from that Mac Guy but trust me, it's there...
Of course that's what MS intended, but the problem is the idea that people buy Macs because they want to appear "cool" has always been an something of an exaggeration from the bitter dregs of the PC universe.
More realistically, they will avoid going to Best Buy to buy a computer.
well.. I went to Best Buy with the intention of buying either a new PC or a laptop. The sales lady was pretty helpful and asked what I was using my computer for (photography) she suggested the iMac. The price was well within my range. Now that I am the proud owner of a Mac I will NEVER go back to PC.
its pretty much showing us all how cheap, and low down PC's are...
everyone will now start to save for a Mac!
=]
People should be saving their money anyway.
Why spend $400 for a piece of crap plastic machine with "WINDERS" that runs like WINDERS 95 on Mark McGuiroids when you can SAVE YOUR MONEY for when the economy gets a little better then get a new hotness MacBook or MacBook Pro?
To me, true meaning of that sentence is "I guess I'm not silly enough to buy overpriced Mac and think I'm suddenly cool just because I own it".
Of course, some people around here can't recognize irony if it does not come from that Mac Guy but trust me, it's there...
The term 'overpriced' is somewhat debatable.
Is a computer that is so low in price that it is total crap in design and implementation and the OS it runs is poorly written really a good deal? If so I know some cars in Russia the lady should buy too.
On the other hand does a computer that enables a good profit for the manufacturer and therefore the hiring of the brightest and smartest in the industry that can create an OS that is light years ahead and design hardware that is truly awesome ... make for a bad deal?
Plus remember the latter computer is still worth 50% of its initial price three years later whereas the former one is landfill fodder (and not even green at that!).
There is an old adage that fits here ... M$ buyers beware ... 'you get what you pay for'
Having owned a Mac in the past (and intending to buy one in the future), currently owning a custom-built PC running Ubuntu Linux 9.04 and a laptop running Windows XP Home (primarily used by my wife), I can see the pros and cons of all three computer configurations.
What I don't understand is the need some feel to "correct" (or berate or belittle) others who clearly are happy (or profess to be happy) with their current setup if it doesn't conform to their own ideal.
Personaly, I like Macs. I like their unique, stylish, functional, space-saving form factors. I like the high quality, durable materials with which they are constructed. I like all the little nuances--the magnetic power connectors on the laptops, back-lit keyboards, slot-loading optical drives. I like their OS, which does most of the things I need to do with a computer on a regular basis, and does them very well. If ever I need to do something that only Windows can do (build an Access database, run an app not supported on Mac OS X, etc.), if it's an Intel Mac I can run Windows in a VirtualBox (seamless mode, FTW), or I can use boot camp. Heck, I can even run Linux on there and have the best of 3 worlds running on one machine LEGALLY.
Speaking of which, I am one of the apparent minority that believes media/software piracy is wrong. If I want to run Windows, I'll run a licensed, legal copy of it (but I prefer to not give Microsoft any more money than I have to, so I run Linux on my custom desktop). Same with Mac OS X, which per the EULA--which I agree to when I purchase the software--should only be run on Apple hardware.
I also very much enjoy building my own computers, which is why I own a custom built PC.
However, if I were given the choice of having any (one) computer I wanted, it would be an Intel Mac for the resons described above. It can run OS X (LEGALLY), Windows, and Linux. For me, it would be the ultimate computing machine.
Is price a concern for me? I can't say that it's not. I am not wealthy. In fact, I'm trying to dig myself out of debt like most people out there. I am fully aware that for $450-$500 I could build a nice quad-core machine that would run Windows and Linux, be plenty fast for my needs, and do just about anything that I'd want to do.
But it wouldn't be a Mac. Even if I made it a "hackintosh", it would not be a Mac. It would be OS X running on cheap PC parts with none of the nuances that make the Mac experience so enjoyable.
In my experience, you're not an atypical Mac user in that you just like how Apple builds its machines and software.
Which is why the whole "ha ha I guess I'm not cool enough to own a Mac" seems like such a childish and wrongheaded tactic. It's like the ad agency MS used has been hanging out in the comment sections of tech sites, and decided that the PC geek vitriol that is a staple at such places somehow captures the mood of the buying public.
I think that people that would never consider a Mac, be it for price, some odd cultural notion, or whatever, will continue to never consider a Mac and probably get a chuckle, or a sense of vindication, out of the MS ad.
For everybody else, I dunno. Does the MS ad even register as anything interesting?
It occurs to me that the M$ ads are only taking advantage of a sentiment that seems to be prevalent during the economic turmoil of late: that anyone who has lots of money and spends it on things that are perceived as "luxurious" or "expensive" is evil and corrupt, must have obtained his/her wealth by exploiting the "less fortunate", and deserves to be subject to scorn, ridicule, and even punishment. Whether this sentiment is justified is another matter entirely, but the sentiment is definitely there.
M$ recognizes this and is trying to play it in their favor (as many other companies are...I've lost track of how many ads I've seen/heard that start with some mention of a recession or the bad economy), but I doubt it will accomplish anything more than further polarizing the two sides.
It's a classic case of class warfare, and M$ is just trying to stir the pot a little.
I'm one of those old-fashioned people that believes that if you've earned your money playing by the rules, you should have the right to spend it however you wish. Even on Macs.
My personal opinion on all this wrangling is that Apple's transition to Intel have blurred the differences in hardware between Apple and generic PCs. Previously, there were Power PCs chips with separate chipsets and other different hardwares.
With the transition to generic parts from Intel and other manufacturers, their hardware have suddenly became more price transparent. Everybody now knows exactly the price for each hardware part. Thus, this overprice debate is raging on.
I am a MAC user but I have to admit that the hardware in recent updates have been very overpriced. I am still willing to be a MAC user is strictly because of the software. If one day Apple screw up on OS X, there would no longer be any reason to buy Apple computers anymore. Till then, their leverage on the industry is always the software. I would like to see MS take on Apple in the realm of the operating system instead of pricing and 'cool factors'.
I also have sympathy for MS in that they have to create a software to cater to millions of apps and thousands of manufacturer with each having different requirements.
On the other side of the coin, if apple is to say rule the computing world, I would imagine that computing would not evolve so quickly and the different variations of hardware would also be very much subdued. Their main advantage is that their OS X does not need to cater to so many different versions of hardware, it must be apple made.
So the saga continues, Apple may have improved on the computing experience but if there is no MS, imagine a world without $99 external harddisk, $30 wireless adaptors, $10 wireless mouse. MS will always be here. Apple is not and will not be a direct contender with MS. At most, I consider Apple to be a variant competitor. They can offer a different view on the concept of computing. However, mainstream computing is still in the world of MS.
I need a PC because of the multiple third party apps, cheap hardware and other readily available components. I strong believe that both Apple and MS can co-exist peacefully and there is no point for anyone to emerge as the sole winner. For consumers, at least we have a choice between Apple and MS. I just hope that Apple does not self destruct like in the 90s cause if they screw up one more time, I am confident that the market would not be so kind this time round as the competition heats up.
Till then, long live MS and Apple for these two companies have really changed my life.
Is a computer that is so low in price that it is total crap in design and implementation and the OS it runs is poorly written really a good deal? If so I know some cars in Russia the lady should buy too.
On the other hand does a computer that enables a good profit for the manufacturer and therefore the hiring of the brightest and smartest in the industry that can create an OS that is light years ahead and design hardware that is truly awesome ... make for a bad deal?
Plus remember the latter computer is still worth 50% of its initial price three years later whereas the former one is landfill fodder (and not even green at that!).
There is an old adage that fits here ... M$ buyers beware ... 'you get what you pay for'
Is that irony?
Of course price is debatable. I am representing my point of view, which you might not share.
Then again, for me your point is pure cliché.
Insisting that all PCs are lower built quality than Macs, that is. True you can buy some cheap systems (or components if you prefer to build yourself) but you can also get high-end parts and still save significant money compared to Macs.
Since I've just built my new system, let me give you an example. Prices are in New Zealand Dollars, and, though I did build it myself, I could have it built in the shop I've purchased parts from for free (so I didn't save anything regarding that):
CPU: Intel C2Q 9550 2.83GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA EP45 - UD3R
RAM: 8GB G-Skill Black Edition DDR2 900 4-4-4-12
HDD: WD 1TB
Power: Silverstone Decathlon 650W modular
Case: Lian-Li PC-7S aluminium
Monitor: Samsung 24" (still choosing it)
Graphics: HT ATI Radeon 4870 1GB
OS: Vista Ultimate 64 OEM (already had it but for fair compare)
If you are interested in hardware, you'll find out that - quality wise - all parts are high end. I actually sacrificed going Intel i7/X58 platform for getting top quality parts for C2Q/P45 platform.
All together, price will be (once I have my monitor) between NZ$3000 and 3100.
Here in NZ, 24" iMac with C2D 2.93/4GB/640GB/GT120 would cost me NZ$4000 (official Apple price - could be a bit cheaper on street, not sure). And it is still way bellow specs wise.
Entry Mac Pro with single 2.66GHz Xeon/3GB/650GB/GT120 would cost me NZ$5600. I think my system can hold it's ground against it - and then some.
Back to the original question - quality. What do we really know about Mac quality - regarding components? For example, I know that my motherboard comes with all solid state caps, 2oz copper layer (compared to common 1oz - for better heat distribution and cooling), ferrite core chokes, lower resistance MOSFETS, heatpipe cooler design for chipset etc. But what do we know about motherboards in iMacs? Who is behind Apple's power supplies and what are characteristics? RAM chips manufacturer..?
All I can see is perceived quality... but from what I could read about various problems different Mac models and generations have/had, I'm not convinced that perceived quality really translates in actual quality.
At the end of a day, I'm still interested in having one OS X machine in my household, but I'm finding harder and harder to justify what I see as Apple's attempt to use great OS to sell me overpriced (and often outdated) hardware with good looks but unknown and questionable components quality. I would be very happy if Apple would explain - in details - why are their configurations so much more expensive than PC. Maybe I would change my position on pricing issue. But i doubt that. I don't believe that parts inside Apple desktops (primarily) and notebooks are anything out of ordinary. No magic there. If there was any, I'm sure Apple would talk about that much more as an argument to justify pricing.
And just one more short remark (true story, I swear); Last year I got beautiful, shiny all-aluminium external 2.5" CollerMaster X-Craft HDD enclosure, with great carry case, polishing cloth, manual... for NZ$50 (at the time); one of best looking enclosures I have seen (and exact reason why I purchased it impulsively).
All fine... except my 160GB WD HDD had all kind of problems with enclosure. Quick search showed a lot of people experiencing various problems with different X-craft enclosures. I got darn thing back and got cheap, NZ$15 ICZ enclosure. No polished aluminium, no fancy holster and polishing cloth.
But it works brilliantly.
And you don't always get what you paid for. Sometimes you get great bargain. Other times you might be ripped off.
I don't thing that it makes any sense to compare Apple's prices with home built PCs.
It was home built only because I wanted it that way. I could also select parts on-line, have shop puting them together, installing OS, drivers and updates and have computer delivered to me the next day.
I don't see difference between this or, say, Dell/HP/any on-line configurator..?
It was home built only because I wanted it that way. I could also select parts on-line, have shop puting them together, installing OS, drivers and updates and have computer delivered to me the next day.
I don't see difference between this or, say, Dell/HP/any on-line configurator..?
Price. It's always going to be cheaper to built it yourself.
Price. It's always going to be cheaper to built it yourself.
You didn't read carefully. Here in NZ most shops will build it for free - much as I am aware of (or, if you prefer, their labour is included in their retail prices margin). Same thing if you want to reconfigure Dell or any other brand on-line - you pay extra for parts, not for labour.
The only reason I'm building it myself is that I am enjoying it.
I bought a PC. AMD and ATI offering great value right now. Vista is garbage though. Couldn't get my new PC up and running properly to game, just used XP2 Pro and all is good.
It was home built only because I wanted it that way. I could also select parts on-line, have shop puting them together, installing OS, drivers and updates and have computer delivered to me the next day.
I don't see difference between this or, say, Dell/HP/any on-line configurator..?
I was frustrated with Dell/HP because just to have a 4830 series ATI and a better power supply, you end up paying lots more for their "XPS" or "Studio" versions... And HP don't even have any decent mid-range gaming PCs! Much cheaper to assemble yourself or have your local shop put together parts for you.
(I'm not in the US so not so much easily accessible "beige-box" online configuration companies)
How's your Silverstone? I just got a 500W for my AMD 7750 BE and ATI 4830 build... Went AMD instead of Intel because for dualcore much less expensive in terms of CPU and motherboards! Don't need a quadcore because my bottleneck will be GPU especially when I get my 20" somewhere down the line this year. And just regular 2GB 800mhz works fine for my gaming needs at 1280x1024... In Windows XP, Vista was giving a lot of install/driver problems, and I didn't want to shell out more $$$ for Vista 64bit with Windows 7 around the corner. That 4870 is nice... 4890 would be nicer when it comes out...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Of course price is debatable. I am representing my point of view, which you might not share.
Then again, for me your point is pure cliché.
Insisting that all PCs are lower built quality than Macs, that is. True you can buy some cheap systems (or components if you prefer to build yourself) but you can also get high-end parts and still save significant money compared to Macs.
Since I've just built my new system, let me give you an example. Prices are in New Zealand Dollars, and, though I did build it myself, I could have it built in the shop I've purchased parts from for free (so I didn't save anything regarding that):
CPU: Intel C2Q 9550 2.83GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA EP45 - UD3R
RAM: 8GB G-Skill Black Edition DDR2 900 4-4-4-12
HDD: WD 1TB
Power: Silverstone Decathlon 650W modular
Case: Lian-Li PC-7S aluminium
Monitor: Samsung 24" (still choosing it)
Graphics: HT ATI Radeon 4870 1GB
OS: Vista Ultimate 64 OEM (already had it but for fair compare)
Oh, by the way I should point out for day-to-day stuff and especially for work I can't go by without a MacBook. (MacBook Pro would be nice, but that's another topic... ) ... On my trusty white MacBook Core Duo 3 year warranty (Applecare) runs out in a month's time...!
Comments
"Say, I was thinking about switching from a PC to a Mac, but, I'll be damned, apparently they cost more! Forget it!"
Whew, thanks for the heads-up. I did not realize we were in a depression! I'll sell all my AAPL tomorrow. And, buy and hold MSFT for 5 years, riding out the recessi..... er..... depression.
Hey, hold MSFT for ten years and you might get stellar returns of selling your stock for 50% less what you paid for it. Seriously, it is sad to see what has happened since Windows 98 was released to the once-great Microsoft Corporation and it's market value.
LOL, i just watched the ad.
It actually makes people want to buy a Mac lol.
"I guess i'm not cool enough to be a Mac person" .. oh dear
To me, true meaning of that sentence is "I guess I'm not silly enough to buy overpriced Mac and think I'm suddenly cool just because I own it".
Of course, some people around here can't recognize irony if it does not come from that Mac Guy
To me, true meaning of that sentence is "I guess I'm not silly enough to buy overpriced Mac and think I'm suddenly cool just because I own it".
Of course, some people around here can't recognize irony if it does not come from that Mac Guy
Of course that's what MS intended, but the problem is the idea that people buy Macs because they want to appear "cool" has always been an something of an exaggeration from the bitter dregs of the PC universe.
More realistically, they will avoid going to Best Buy to buy a computer.
well.. I went to Best Buy with the intention of buying either a new PC or a laptop. The sales lady was pretty helpful and asked what I was using my computer for (photography) she suggested the iMac. The price was well within my range. Now that I am the proud owner of a Mac I will NEVER go back to PC.
its pretty much showing us all how cheap, and low down PC's are...
everyone will now start to save for a Mac!
=]
People should be saving their money anyway.
Why spend $400 for a piece of crap plastic machine with "WINDERS" that runs like WINDERS 95 on Mark McGuiroids when you can SAVE YOUR MONEY for when the economy gets a little better then get a new hotness MacBook or MacBook Pro?
To me, true meaning of that sentence is "I guess I'm not silly enough to buy overpriced Mac and think I'm suddenly cool just because I own it".
Of course, some people around here can't recognize irony if it does not come from that Mac Guy
The term 'overpriced' is somewhat debatable.
Is a computer that is so low in price that it is total crap in design and implementation and the OS it runs is poorly written really a good deal? If so I know some cars in Russia the lady should buy too.
On the other hand does a computer that enables a good profit for the manufacturer and therefore the hiring of the brightest and smartest in the industry that can create an OS that is light years ahead and design hardware that is truly awesome ... make for a bad deal?
Plus remember the latter computer is still worth 50% of its initial price three years later whereas the former one is landfill fodder (and not even green at that!).
There is an old adage that fits here ... M$ buyers beware ... 'you get what you pay for'
Is that irony?
What I don't understand is the need some feel to "correct" (or berate or belittle) others who clearly are happy (or profess to be happy) with their current setup if it doesn't conform to their own ideal.
Personaly, I like Macs. I like their unique, stylish, functional, space-saving form factors. I like the high quality, durable materials with which they are constructed. I like all the little nuances--the magnetic power connectors on the laptops, back-lit keyboards, slot-loading optical drives. I like their OS, which does most of the things I need to do with a computer on a regular basis, and does them very well. If ever I need to do something that only Windows can do (build an Access database, run an app not supported on Mac OS X, etc.), if it's an Intel Mac I can run Windows in a VirtualBox (seamless mode, FTW), or I can use boot camp. Heck, I can even run Linux on there and have the best of 3 worlds running on one machine LEGALLY.
Speaking of which, I am one of the apparent minority that believes media/software piracy is wrong. If I want to run Windows, I'll run a licensed, legal copy of it (but I prefer to not give Microsoft any more money than I have to, so I run Linux on my custom desktop). Same with Mac OS X, which per the EULA--which I agree to when I purchase the software--should only be run on Apple hardware.
I also very much enjoy building my own computers, which is why I own a custom built PC.
However, if I were given the choice of having any (one) computer I wanted, it would be an Intel Mac for the resons described above. It can run OS X (LEGALLY), Windows, and Linux. For me, it would be the ultimate computing machine.
Is price a concern for me? I can't say that it's not. I am not wealthy. In fact, I'm trying to dig myself out of debt like most people out there. I am fully aware that for $450-$500 I could build a nice quad-core machine that would run Windows and Linux, be plenty fast for my needs, and do just about anything that I'd want to do.
But it wouldn't be a Mac. Even if I made it a "hackintosh", it would not be a Mac. It would be OS X running on cheap PC parts with none of the nuances that make the Mac experience so enjoyable.
In my experience, you're not an atypical Mac user in that you just like how Apple builds its machines and software.
Which is why the whole "ha ha I guess I'm not cool enough to own a Mac" seems like such a childish and wrongheaded tactic. It's like the ad agency MS used has been hanging out in the comment sections of tech sites, and decided that the PC geek vitriol that is a staple at such places somehow captures the mood of the buying public.
I think that people that would never consider a Mac, be it for price, some odd cultural notion, or whatever, will continue to never consider a Mac and probably get a chuckle, or a sense of vindication, out of the MS ad.
For everybody else, I dunno. Does the MS ad even register as anything interesting?
It occurs to me that the M$ ads are only taking advantage of a sentiment that seems to be prevalent during the economic turmoil of late: that anyone who has lots of money and spends it on things that are perceived as "luxurious" or "expensive" is evil and corrupt, must have obtained his/her wealth by exploiting the "less fortunate", and deserves to be subject to scorn, ridicule, and even punishment. Whether this sentiment is justified is another matter entirely, but the sentiment is definitely there.
M$ recognizes this and is trying to play it in their favor (as many other companies are...I've lost track of how many ads I've seen/heard that start with some mention of a recession or the bad economy), but I doubt it will accomplish anything more than further polarizing the two sides.
It's a classic case of class warfare, and M$ is just trying to stir the pot a little.
I'm one of those old-fashioned people that believes that if you've earned your money playing by the rules, you should have the right to spend it however you wish. Even on Macs.
With the transition to generic parts from Intel and other manufacturers, their hardware have suddenly became more price transparent. Everybody now knows exactly the price for each hardware part. Thus, this overprice debate is raging on.
I am a MAC user but I have to admit that the hardware in recent updates have been very overpriced. I am still willing to be a MAC user is strictly because of the software. If one day Apple screw up on OS X, there would no longer be any reason to buy Apple computers anymore. Till then, their leverage on the industry is always the software. I would like to see MS take on Apple in the realm of the operating system instead of pricing and 'cool factors'.
I also have sympathy for MS in that they have to create a software to cater to millions of apps and thousands of manufacturer with each having different requirements.
On the other side of the coin, if apple is to say rule the computing world, I would imagine that computing would not evolve so quickly and the different variations of hardware would also be very much subdued. Their main advantage is that their OS X does not need to cater to so many different versions of hardware, it must be apple made.
So the saga continues, Apple may have improved on the computing experience but if there is no MS, imagine a world without $99 external harddisk, $30 wireless adaptors, $10 wireless mouse. MS will always be here. Apple is not and will not be a direct contender with MS. At most, I consider Apple to be a variant competitor. They can offer a different view on the concept of computing. However, mainstream computing is still in the world of MS.
I need a PC because of the multiple third party apps, cheap hardware and other readily available components. I strong believe that both Apple and MS can co-exist peacefully and there is no point for anyone to emerge as the sole winner. For consumers, at least we have a choice between Apple and MS. I just hope that Apple does not self destruct like in the 90s cause if they screw up one more time, I am confident that the market would not be so kind this time round as the competition heats up.
Till then, long live MS and Apple for these two companies have really changed my life.
The term 'overpriced' is somewhat debatable.
Is a computer that is so low in price that it is total crap in design and implementation and the OS it runs is poorly written really a good deal? If so I know some cars in Russia the lady should buy too.
On the other hand does a computer that enables a good profit for the manufacturer and therefore the hiring of the brightest and smartest in the industry that can create an OS that is light years ahead and design hardware that is truly awesome ... make for a bad deal?
Plus remember the latter computer is still worth 50% of its initial price three years later whereas the former one is landfill fodder (and not even green at that!).
There is an old adage that fits here ... M$ buyers beware ... 'you get what you pay for'
Is that irony?
Of course price is debatable. I am representing my point of view, which you might not share.
Then again, for me your point is pure cliché.
Insisting that all PCs are lower built quality than Macs, that is. True you can buy some cheap systems (or components if you prefer to build yourself) but you can also get high-end parts and still save significant money compared to Macs.
Since I've just built my new system, let me give you an example. Prices are in New Zealand Dollars, and, though I did build it myself, I could have it built in the shop I've purchased parts from for free (so I didn't save anything regarding that):
CPU: Intel C2Q 9550 2.83GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA EP45 - UD3R
RAM: 8GB G-Skill Black Edition DDR2 900 4-4-4-12
HDD: WD 1TB
Power: Silverstone Decathlon 650W modular
Case: Lian-Li PC-7S aluminium
Monitor: Samsung 24" (still choosing it)
Graphics: HT ATI Radeon 4870 1GB
OS: Vista Ultimate 64 OEM (already had it but for fair compare)
If you are interested in hardware, you'll find out that - quality wise - all parts are high end. I actually sacrificed going Intel i7/X58 platform for getting top quality parts for C2Q/P45 platform.
All together, price will be (once I have my monitor) between NZ$3000 and 3100.
Here in NZ, 24" iMac with C2D 2.93/4GB/640GB/GT120 would cost me NZ$4000 (official Apple price - could be a bit cheaper on street, not sure). And it is still way bellow specs wise.
Entry Mac Pro with single 2.66GHz Xeon/3GB/650GB/GT120 would cost me NZ$5600. I think my system can hold it's ground against it - and then some.
Back to the original question - quality. What do we really know about Mac quality - regarding components? For example, I know that my motherboard comes with all solid state caps, 2oz copper layer (compared to common 1oz - for better heat distribution and cooling), ferrite core chokes, lower resistance MOSFETS, heatpipe cooler design for chipset etc. But what do we know about motherboards in iMacs? Who is behind Apple's power supplies and what are characteristics? RAM chips manufacturer..?
All I can see is perceived quality... but from what I could read about various problems different Mac models and generations have/had, I'm not convinced that perceived quality really translates in actual quality.
At the end of a day, I'm still interested in having one OS X machine in my household, but I'm finding harder and harder to justify what I see as Apple's attempt to use great OS to sell me overpriced (and often outdated) hardware with good looks but unknown and questionable components quality. I would be very happy if Apple would explain - in details - why are their configurations so much more expensive than PC. Maybe I would change my position on pricing issue. But i doubt that. I don't believe that parts inside Apple desktops (primarily) and notebooks are anything out of ordinary. No magic there. If there was any, I'm sure Apple would talk about that much more as an argument to justify pricing.
And just one more short remark (true story, I swear); Last year I got beautiful, shiny all-aluminium external 2.5" CollerMaster X-Craft HDD enclosure, with great carry case, polishing cloth, manual... for NZ$50 (at the time); one of best looking enclosures I have seen (and exact reason why I purchased it impulsively).
All fine... except my 160GB WD HDD had all kind of problems with enclosure. Quick search showed a lot of people experiencing various problems with different X-craft enclosures. I got darn thing back and got cheap, NZ$15 ICZ enclosure. No polished aluminium, no fancy holster and polishing cloth.
But it works brilliantly.
And you don't always get what you paid for. Sometimes you get great bargain. Other times you might be ripped off.
I don't thing that it makes any sense to compare Apple's prices with home built PCs.
It was home built only because I wanted it that way. I could also select parts on-line, have shop puting them together, installing OS, drivers and updates and have computer delivered to me the next day.
I don't see difference between this or, say, Dell/HP/any on-line configurator..?
It was home built only because I wanted it that way. I could also select parts on-line, have shop puting them together, installing OS, drivers and updates and have computer delivered to me the next day.
I don't see difference between this or, say, Dell/HP/any on-line configurator..?
Price. It's always going to be cheaper to built it yourself.
Price. It's always going to be cheaper to built it yourself.
You didn't read carefully. Here in NZ most shops will build it for free - much as I am aware of (or, if you prefer, their labour is included in their retail prices margin). Same thing if you want to reconfigure Dell or any other brand on-line - you pay extra for parts, not for labour.
The only reason I'm building it myself is that I am enjoying it.
It was home built only because I wanted it that way. I could also select parts on-line, have shop puting them together, installing OS, drivers and updates and have computer delivered to me the next day.
I don't see difference between this or, say, Dell/HP/any on-line configurator..?
I was frustrated with Dell/HP because just to have a 4830 series ATI and a better power supply, you end up paying lots more for their "XPS" or "Studio" versions...
(I'm not in the US so not so much easily accessible "beige-box" online configuration companies)
Of course price is debatable. I am representing my point of view, which you might not share.
Then again, for me your point is pure cliché.
Insisting that all PCs are lower built quality than Macs, that is. True you can buy some cheap systems (or components if you prefer to build yourself) but you can also get high-end parts and still save significant money compared to Macs.
Since I've just built my new system, let me give you an example. Prices are in New Zealand Dollars, and, though I did build it myself, I could have it built in the shop I've purchased parts from for free (so I didn't save anything regarding that):
CPU: Intel C2Q 9550 2.83GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA EP45 - UD3R
RAM: 8GB G-Skill Black Edition DDR2 900 4-4-4-12
HDD: WD 1TB
Power: Silverstone Decathlon 650W modular
Case: Lian-Li PC-7S aluminium
Monitor: Samsung 24" (still choosing it)
Graphics: HT ATI Radeon 4870 1GB
OS: Vista Ultimate 64 OEM (already had it but for fair compare)
....