Added value of OS X over Windows

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
I don't want to start a flame war over whether or not Macs are "too expensive". I'm simply asking a hypothetical question.



Given two computers with totally identical specs (CPU, hard drive, RAM, USB ports, webcam, etc), how much more would you pay for one with OS X as opposed to one with Windows (XP, Vista, or 7), either in percentage of the price or in dollars?



Hackintoshes don't factor in, since this is a hypothetical question.



Personally, I'd be prepared to pay up to 50% more, but that's just me.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post


    I don't want to start a flame war over whether or not Macs are "too expensive". I'm simply asking a hypothetical question.



    Given two computers with totally identical specs (CPU, hard drive, RAM, USB ports, webcam, etc), how much more would you pay for one with OS X as opposed to one with Windows (XP, Vista, or 7), either in percentage of the price or in dollars?



    Hackintoshes don't factor in, since this is a hypothetical question.



    Personally, I'd be prepared to pay up to 50% more, but that's just me.



    %25 to %30 more.



    I just identify with Apple's design aesthetic and ideology more than Microsoft. Though I'm sensitive to these traits in other areas as well.



    I've never found Microsoft to be particularly innovative. Everything they've done has largely been an ape of someone else.



    From copying Novell Netware to many elements of Mac OS they've excelled via brute force rather than software design skill.
  • Reply 2 of 33
    quillzquillz Posts: 209member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    I've never found Microsoft to be particularly innovative. Everything they've done has largely been an ape of someone else.



    Clearly you don't know anything. You're probably the type that worships Steve Jobs every night.



    If I had my way, a machine running Mac OS X would cost exactly the same as a machine running Windows. Neither is better than the other. Each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages.
  • Reply 3 of 33
    houseleyhouseley Posts: 147member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quillz View Post


    Clearly you don't know anything. You're probably the type that worships Steve Jobs every night.



    ...and clearly, unlike the OP, you do want to start a flame war.
  • Reply 4 of 33
    I would pay more for an Apple computer, just because it has better value. My Dell, which was the same price as my iMac (1500, around) after three years had so many problems, either caused by viruses or hardware, it was crazy. And the slowness of the computer killed me (it was running XP, btw). However, my iMac -- three years old now -- still runs pretty fast. Sure, it has it's problem, but I still have sound (unlike my Dell), my ethernet still works (unlike my Dell) and it starts up quick (unlike my Dell).



    So, yes Dell's are cheaper (and other PC brands), but how long are the parts going to last? We have bought several sound cards for the Dell, installed them, and it would work for a while then stop. Finally, we got one to work, but then the ethernet card broke. It's really been a headache, while my iMac has been (pretty much) worry free. And it appears Snow Leopard will make it even faster, unlike Vista which can't even run on my Dell (which, actually, the Dell is my parents now -- but use to be my Dell before I moved out three years ago). But I still use the Dell when I come over.



    So yea, I would gladly pay more for an Apple computer.
  • Reply 5 of 33
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quillz View Post


    Clearly you don't know anything. You're probably the type that worships Steve Jobs every night.



    If I had my way, a machine running Mac OS X would cost exactly the same as a machine running Windows. Neither is better than the other. Each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages.



    I must not, since you've so eloquently rebutted my claims with so much damning evidence and undeniable logic that I stand before you in abject defeat.



    Let's break down just a couple of facts.



    1. You don't have your way.

    2. Claiming that neither platform is better than the other is opinion which cannot be proven nor disproven nor supported with any semblance of logic so it's a vacuous statement.



    Your wishy washy "everything is equal and nothing really matters" smack of mediocrity and low brow thinking. Id have respected your post more if you had added a modicum of substance and framed your debate about the relative merits of each platform. Added bonus on arguing from the affirmative and the negative.



    You lost with the lead off ad hominem.
  • Reply 6 of 33
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,430moderator
    It would have to depend on the machine. 50% of Mac Pro money is quite a lot more than 50% of a Mini.



    The iMac and Mini I'd say 25% but probably 15% of the Mac Pro.

    For the 13" and 15" laptops up to 50%, the 17" up to 30%.



    Durability on the laptop side is crucial as well as cooling, the mag-safe etc.



    Right now, I feel Apple's products are a bit too highly priced. I know in the UK it's partly to do with the exchange rate now but when the dollar was down, the UK prices didn't fall to amazing value. International customers are treated unfairly in Apple's business model.



    As of the current exchange, $1699 = £1023 and yet the cheapest 15" MBP is £1299. Where does the £276 extra come from? Tax doesn't come into it unless Apple charge $458 tax on top of the $1699 online price.



    This annoys me more than comparisons with other manufacturers. I would pay 50% more for a Macbook Pro than a Dell but I grudge paying 27% more than an American when buying from the same company. Fair enough, charge £1099 and put in a £50 premium but £276 is ridiculous.



    Dell does the same though - the exact same spec Alienware comes out at £1759 UK vs $2074. Going by the UK price, it should cost $2917. By the US price, it should be £1250. This is over £500 ($843) extra just for being in the UK.



    Are they shipping these by eskimo in a canoe? In the case of the Dell, I could actually get a return flight to the US and pick one of these up individually and bring it back for that.
  • Reply 7 of 33
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    As of the current exchange, $1699 = £1023 and yet the cheapest 15" MBP is £1299. Where does the £276 extra come from? Tax doesn't come into it...



    Of course tax comes into it. The US $1699 doesn't include tax but the UK £1299 does. Today's rate according to x-rates.com is 1.64 so $1699 = £1036, add 15% tax and you get £1191. So yeah, Apple is still ripping us off but it's not as bad as you're making out.



    On the original question: for exactly the same hardware, if it's my primary machine, I'd probably pay £200 or more extra for OS X; Windows 7 may change this as it looks like it's quite a lot better than Vista. However, back in the real world the hardware isn't exactly the same - I'm a laptop user and think Apple has vastly superior hardware to everyone else (there's a lot more to hardware than just processor, HDD and RAM) which is why I pay a lot more for it.
  • Reply 8 of 33
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    I must not, since you've so eloquently rebutted my claims with so much damning evidence and undeniable logic that I stand before you in abject defeat.



    Let's break down just a couple of facts.



    1. You don't have your way.

    2. Claiming that neither platform is better than the other is opinion which cannot be proven nor disproven nor supported with any semblance of logic so it's a vacuous statement.



    Your wishy washy "everything is equal and nothing really matters" smack of mediocrity and low brow thinking. Id have respected your post more if you had added a modicum of substance and framed your debate about the relative merits of each platform. Added bonus on arguing from the affirmative and the negative.



    You lost with the lead off ad hominem.



    Excellent post. Well said. I await Quillz's posting of a list of Microsoft's home-grown innovations.
  • Reply 9 of 33
    tilttilt Posts: 396member
    Assuming that both machines were of the same quality and price (hardware), I would pay $129 (US) more for Mac OS X



    Cheers
  • Reply 10 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tilt View Post


    Assuming that both machines were of the same quality and price (hardware), I would pay $129 (US) more for Mac OS X



    Cheers



    Yeah!! even a whole lot MORE OSX RULES!!!!
  • Reply 11 of 33
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,430moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Of course tax comes into it. The US $1699 doesn't include tax but the UK £1299 does. Today's rate according to x-rates.com is 1.64 so $1699 = £1036, add 15% tax and you get £1191. So yeah, Apple is still ripping us off but it's not as bad as you're making out.



    I just read online that this may be why some people buy from Amazon as it has no sales tax when shipping to certain states.



    "The following is a partial list of merchants selling items at Amazon.com which may be included in your order, and the states in which they charge sales tax.



    Amazon.com LLC: KS, KY, ND, NY* and WA

    Amazon Digital Services, Inc.: KY, ND, NY* and WA

    Magazine Express, Inc.: AL and WA

    Synapse Services, Inc.: WA only

    Target.com/ITC: All states other than AK and VT"



    So buying the following MBP for $1694 might not be any more than that in states not listed above.



    http://www.amazon.com/Apple-MacBook-...790695&sr=1-49



    The fact that $1699 doesn't include tax then, I'd say it's overpriced. Including tax, not so much. In the UK, £1099 I'd say was reasonable but £1299 not so much given that it's the cheapest 15" laptop you can get from Apple and other manufacturers have 15" laptops for £500.
  • Reply 12 of 33
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    In the UK, £1099 I'd say was reasonable but £1299 not so much given that it's the cheapest 15" laptop you can get from Apple and other manufacturers have 15" laptops for £500.



    I've long been of the opinion that it's time for Apple to stop tying computing power to screen size. I think £1199 would be reasonable for this model given what it's got on board. Those £500 15" laptops are big and heavy, with low-res, poor gamut and viewing angle screens, no firewire, no digital audio I/O, no backlit keyboard and no OS X.



    I think Apple is big enough now that it could handle a serious expansion of its range. Time to invest that money into expanding the production line to handle more customisation. They've already got a full range of MacBook Pro bodies from 13" to 17", now it should expand the MacBook line to range from 13" to 17" as well. Then, each line should be fully customisable. Want the 17" screen but the slowest processor, less RAM and smallest HDD to save money? You've got it.



    Apple will never do it though because they're scared of cannibalisation. Weirdly, they've never had that same fear with iPods. Better that you cannibalise your products rather than someone else.
  • Reply 13 of 33
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I just read online that this may be why some people buy from Amazon as it has no sales tax when shipping to certain states.



    "The following is a partial list of merchants selling items at Amazon.com which may be included in your order, and the states in which they charge sales tax.



    Amazon.com LLC: KS, KY, ND, NY* and WA

    Amazon Digital Services, Inc.: KY, ND, NY* and WA

    Magazine Express, Inc.: AL and WA

    Synapse Services, Inc.: WA only

    Target.com/ITC: All states other than AK and VT"



    So buying the following MBP for $1694 might not be any more than that in states not listed above.



    http://www.amazon.com/Apple-MacBook-...790695&sr=1-49



    The fact that $1699 doesn't include tax then, I'd say it's overpriced. Including tax, not so much. In the UK, £1099 I'd say was reasonable but £1299 not so much given that it's the cheapest 15" laptop you can get from Apple and other manufacturers have 15" laptops for £500.



    Subtract the difference of US Sales tax from the VAT rate and you'll still get a more expensive product on import.
  • Reply 14 of 33
    sequitursequitur Posts: 1,910member
    My beef is not with the cost of Macs, but I do not appreciate the extreme over-charging of things like memory. Clearly, that is gouging.
  • Reply 15 of 33
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    My beef is not with the cost of Macs, but I do not appreciate the extreme over-charging of things like memory. Clearly, that is gouging.



    Macs use standard RAM. It does not magically become more expensive because you buy it for a Mac.
  • Reply 16 of 33
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    My beef is not with the cost of Macs, but I do not appreciate the extreme over-charging of things like memory. Clearly, that is gouging.



    Although they've gotten quite a bit better with that as of late. For instance, you can bump the new 13" MacBook Pro from 2 to 4 gigs for $100 bucks, compared to the $50 it would cost to buy a 2GB stick. Not a deal, by any means, but not remotely the insanity of yore. Actually in line with the likes of Dell.



    However, the jump to 8GB for the 15 inchers is still quite mad at a cool grand, I see.
  • Reply 17 of 33
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    I've long been of the opinion that it's time for Apple to stop tying computing power to screen size. I think £1199 would be reasonable for this model given what it's got on board. Those £500 15" laptops are big and heavy, with low-res, poor gamut and viewing angle screens, no firewire, no digital audio I/O, no backlit keyboard and no OS X.



    I think Apple is big enough now that it could handle a serious expansion of its range. Time to invest that money into expanding the production line to handle more customisation. They've already got a full range of MacBook Pro bodies from 13" to 17", now it should expand the MacBook line to range from 13" to 17" as well. Then, each line should be fully customisable. Want the 17" screen but the slowest processor, less RAM and smallest HDD to save money? You've got it.



    Apple will never do it though because they're scared of cannibalisation. Weirdly, they've never had that same fear with iPods. Better that you cannibalise your products rather than someone else.



    I saw an interesting article/blog post somewhere, can't remember where, speculating that the fact that Apple has loaded up the "MacBook Pro" category with 6 models and left the entire "MacBook" line with a single model, and one that's an older design at that, suggests that they're clearing the space for something new.



    Could be a family of newly designed, cheaper laptops, could be something new with the "MacBook" as a modifier ("MacBook Touch"? "MacBook Net"?), or maybe they just wanted to free up the MacBook name for the fabled giant iPhone whatchamacallit.



    Anyway, once you think about it it actually makes sense. Leaving the white MacBook as the lone exemplar of what Apple has often called their best selling Mac doesn't make much sense, even if the new low end MacBook Pros are priced like the former MacBooks.



    That's a lot of brand power just kind of sitting around, you have to imagine Apple has big plans for the segment.
  • Reply 18 of 33
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post


    I don't want to start a flame war over whether or not Macs are "too expensive". I'm simply asking a hypothetical question.



    Given two computers with totally identical specs (CPU, hard drive, RAM, USB ports, webcam, etc), how much more would you pay for one with OS X as opposed to one with Windows (XP, Vista, or 7), either in percentage of the price or in dollars?



    Hackintoshes don't factor in, since this is a hypothetical question.



    Personally, I'd be prepared to pay up to 50% more, but that's just me.



    I have to say, the new $1600 15 inch MBP is a giant screw you to those asking for a cheaper macbook pro...let me explain



    to modify James Carvils famous line, "It's the GPU, STUPID!" Apple neutered the pro laptop at $1600 in order to get a lower price tag, the fact is that the $1999 MBP compares to a $1000-1400 PC notebook. that is nuts...the $1600 MBP is about $700-$1000 on the PC side.



    OK A Dell for $1300 is on par with the macbook pro at $2000...

    Why pay $700 more for an apple, particularly with Windows 7 coming, why pay the Mac Tax?
  • Reply 19 of 33
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a_greer View Post


    OK A Dell for $1300 is on par with the macbook pro at $2000...



    Really? How much does that Dell weigh? How big is it? Does it have a seven hour battery life? A battery that's good for 1000 recharge cycles? Does it have digital audio I/O? A glass trackpad with multi-touch gestures? Gigabit ethernet? Powered firewire? Target disk mode?
  • Reply 20 of 33
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Really? How much does that Dell weigh? How big is it? Does it have a seven hour battery life? A battery that's good for 1000 recharge cycles? Does it have digital audio I/O? A glass trackpad with multi-touch gestures? Gigabit ethernet? Powered firewire? Target disk mode?



    How much does that Dell weigh? 6.4 - 1LB more than the macbook



    How big is it? Height: 0.95" on both laptops

    Does it have a seven hour battery life? 2-ish hrs in real world testing using vista - I have read estimates that claim a 50% better number in 7, as compared to the 6 ish that one can expect with the MBP, this is a clear win for the MBP, but good luck changing the battery when it dies on ya...

    A battery that's good for 1000 recharge cycles? Dell is using the Lithium Ion for this one, not Lithium Polymer like Apple, so another win for apple

    Does it have digital audio I/O? not directly, but it has firewire, which most audio guys use anyway.

    A glass trackpad with multi-touch gestures? All track pads suck, even apples, no, dell isnt using multitouch and glass, but sheesh, I have used laptops exclusively for almost 2 uyears and almost never touch the track pad, who doesnt use an external mouse?

    Gigabit ethernet? yes sir.

    Powered firewire? yup Target disk mode? no but it can boot to any usb device, flash or what have you



    Now lets talk about the MBPs weak points:



    Does the $2000 MBP have any blue ray option? Nope - it is an extra $150on the Dell, Hell, Dell even has an option for a BD BURNER: one wonders why Apple is taken so seriously in the pro video space when they dont support blueray whatsoever...



    HDMI? Heck no, not on Steves watch - being compatible with every display device sold in the last few years and in the forseeable future is a "bag o' hurt"



    PCCard slot? Nope, Apple took that away...it lives on in the Dell



    Card reader? Apple reads 1 type,the Dell reads 8



    GPU Memory: the $1999 MBP has 256, the dell has 512



    integrated cell internet? no go on apple, Dell offers choice of none, VZW or att
Sign In or Register to comment.