# Are Mac's too expensive?



## emceepj (Aug 18, 2002)

The age old question: Do you think mac's are too expensive? that seems to be one of the major gripes when it comes to "switchers" and the like. Why pay $1749 for an iMac when i can pay $1000 for a Dell?

I don't think mac's are overpriced at all personally. They're not at the same level with your common PC, they're better. but i'm biased and i haven't had to touch a PC since when i went home for xmas and installed iTunes for windows on their comp.









anyway: what do YOU think?

phil


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I don't think that Mac's are overpriced either. When you compare the iMacs and eMac feature for feature with some of the better PC brands, I think they stand up well.

You might save some money using a Dell or some cheap PC built in a basement, but then you'd have to use Windows everyday- ( shudder ).

When I was looking at upgrading from my old PowerComputing clone in the fall, I was thinking about an eMac, but I really wanted expandability and flexibility. One thing I wanted to do was to be able to hook up 2 monitors for an extended desktop, which isn't possible on an eMac. There's supposed to be some kind of firmware hack that allows this, but I didn't want to go near that. Here's where I have a problem with Apple - why don't they have a low priced tower that allows for more flexibility? In my case, I opted for a used 2.5 year old DP Powermac, which I'm very happy with.

I'm hoping that in a year or two some of the 1st generation G5's might fall into my price range as the graphics pros are upgrading to whatever marvel Apple is producing then.


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

No, I don't think so personally ... you get what you pay for and I have the perfect example too.

I bought a G4/400 and a Pentium II 350 at the same time (1999) from the same dealer in Mississauga. Both were configured similar (but the PC had a few extra toys over the Mac) - I paid approximately the same price for both. Both computers were used daily and I didn't do much upgrading to either (other than operating systems). I sold the Mac last year for over $800 and I gave the PC to my son because frankly it works fine for what he uses it for but it's worth less than $150 if I throw the monitor into the deal. Without I'd be lucky to see $100. Big difference .. I used the Mac daily for 4 YEARS and I was able to sell it for approximately a third of what I originally paid for it.

There's no resale in PC's, they are like cheap American cars - drive it off the lot and it's suddenly worth half of what you just paid. So you can pay $1700 for a iMac (but don't forget you also get a 15"/17" LCD screen with that price too) and in 2 years that Mac is still going to be worth over $1000. The $1000 Dell, 2 years from now? You'd be lucky to find a buyer ...


----------



## hmto (Jul 4, 2003)

I would have to agree with Simon here. There is inherent resale value in almost all macs and tend to have a longer lifespan as well. Just try selling your two or three year old PC and see what return you get. The analogy of cars is quite useful here if you consider the PC akin to american cars and Macs to a European top three and you get an idea of the overall story.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Nobody gets out of Dell's website at CAN$499.00; their "cheapest" computer offered:

Dimension 2400
Intel® Celeron® Processor at 2.4GHz
XP Home
256MB RAM
40GB drive
Wordperfect Productivity Pack
17" 27dp CRT
CD-ROM
No floppy
No Firewire

Now, there are some things that are basic requirements in this world: Office compatibility and data backup. Adding MS Works for Word and Excel compatibility and a CDRW brings the total up to $619.00.

That's the basics.

Now, bringing that Dell up to equal the eMac, you have to add Firewire, XP Pro, a keyboard with dedicated volume controls, a .25dp 17" CRT, and a Combo drive brings the total up to $968.00.

Boosting the RAM in the eMac to 256MB brings it up to $1,174.00. And it has Appleworks, which can read and write Word and Excel files.

That's a difference of $206.00, and the eMac has a much better video sub-system -- and it runs Mac OS X.

To me, that's easily worth a couple of hundred bucks. People who don't research how the Mac platform performs AND BEHAVES obviously won't get it.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

In Macaholics example you could add the point that the eMac includes iLife too. This is a fantastic body of software for users at all levels. To build the paper equivalent for the Dell would cost a lot more, and it would be just that, a paper equivalent. Nothing you can get for a PC matches the performance AND integration of iLife.

I still think the problem with Mac winning share is availability to general consumers. You have to SEARCH for Macs to touch and compare. Windows machines are evrywhere, and even when you get the odd Mac (like at Futureshop) the presentation and knowledge is sick, just sick.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Yeah, I think I went easy on the Dell. Not everybody is INTO media creation. I thought I went easy on the eMac, too. BOTH systems will perform best with 512MB of RAM, even at their minimum of uses (run the OS, a web browser, email, IM app, calander and word processor at the same time, for example).

Also, despite the eMac having having better graphics, the Dell would probably be faster, with sheer clockspeed alone overcoming the Celeron's shortfalls. Despite this, the eMac performs more than sufficiently for everyday use.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The only time macs are more expensive than PCs is in older used ones. Macs hold their value way more than PCs do as said, so if you're looking to get an older computer a mac will probably cost more. Otherwise, macs can be a better value, without even getting into the benefits of OS X.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macs are too expensive. I have conclusive and definite proof. Some of you are probably wondering what my smoking gun is. Well, let me tell you.

I can't afford to buy a new one.









Of course, I can't afford to buy any new computer at the moment, so maybe it isn't so conclusive or definite.


----------



## Bolor (Sep 14, 2003)

Let's compare apples to apples (pun intended)
Dell PWS 650 with dual Xeon 3.2 GHz processors and similarly equiped to the dual G5.

Dell $6565
Mac $4069

Compare workstations to workstations.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

If I lived in the U.S., the price of Macs would be great. But seeing as I live in Canada and have to pay an additional $0.34 for every American dollar, It leaves a slightly bitter taste in my mouth.

I'd like to see the entry level Macs at about $200 less than they are now, and the G5s about $500 less as well. Their displays are a little pricey too... :\


----------



## howing (Nov 14, 2003)

the lack of a really, REALLY, dirt cheap (entry level) Mac is the reason why most people think Mac's are expensive. You're right though, if you compare the features on a Mac and the same features on a PC, the prices are not at all that different. Problem is, most people don't feel they need to pay for things like Firewire (aka IEEE1394), or wireless internet (the fact that Apple builds a port to make Airport card installation so easy is costly too!), or a nice translucent mouse. To make things worse, they just see a computer, as "a computer". design is not important, features are not important, and what OS is on it, really doesn't matter. Heck, some even think the only OS out there is Microsoft Windows!

They feel they just need a computer, and anything will do. I think that's a reason why Pro's tend to go with Macs, while your average consumer goes PC. I've been questioned many, MANY times why I spend so much more on a Mac. It's the same why I have a Hasselblad as compared to a Fuji... and the same why I own a BMW and not a Honda. To some people, cars are cars, cameras are cameras, computers are computers. Money is top priority, and the fact is... the lowest end Dell is cheaper than the lowest end Mac.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Compared to what?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

> They just see a computer, as "a computer". design is not important, features are not important, and what OS is on it, really doesn't matter. Heck, some even think the only OS out there is Microsoft Windows!


Man, you got that right!

Are the biggest problems with the x86 platform caused by the hardware or the OS? Windows is a *major* liability, and yet people don't even think about the repercussions of using it. no viruses. Secure. Easy to use. Longevity in regards to both the hardware viability and OS stability. Very complete compatibility for the consumer masses' needs. It's all there on the Mac. And yet, there is so much dated misinformation about Macs that they don't even contemplate it as an option unless you have one of us chipping away at the rust in their heads. And, if they ask "the I.T. dude at work" for advice, then FORGET IT!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Heck, some even think the only OS out there is Microsoft Windows! ..."

Ask anybody in IT and I guarantee that they will tell you of users who think the OS they're using is "Microsoft Word".


----------



## howing (Nov 14, 2003)

> Are the biggest problems with the x86 platform caused by the hardware or the OS? Windows is a major liability, and yet people don't even think about the repercussions of using it. no viruses. Secure. Easy to use. Longevity in regards to both the hardware viability and OS stability


Macohollic, the problem is not exclusively in the OS, or the x86 platform. It's a matter of both. Take for example, one of those self-built machines that some Chinese guy builds in Pacific Mall. They cost a little bit over 500 dollars with the latest Intel chip and a 17 inch CRT monitor. That's quite a good deal for someone not knowing what the heck is inside the computer. Many of my friends have one, and you can compare the parts inside. With 6 screw holes in the motherboard, they screw in 3. while using the latest in processor (so they can advertise as such), they use the most outdated and unreliable RAM. As for monitor.. LOL... they don't even come in a box. it comes in a bag... with no cables. cables are an additional $4 each! 

Compare that however, with a Dell. Dell cases are not that bad. Everything inside is well-built, at least none of that 3 screws in 6 screw holes scenario. Macs are good... but Macs are also expensive. You can't expect everyone to be able, or to be WILLING, to shell out the big bucks for a better looking and more stable machine.

As for viruses, that's just the user base. As the Mac catches on, more and more people will start to fiddle with it, and write viruses for it. Same technique that's used to sell a Mac now ("why would anyone write a virus for only 2% of all computers?) will be used to haunt Macs in the future. let's all do a mental exercise here, if Windows users were 2% of the computing world, do you think they would have as much viruses as they do now? Sure... Windows has problems, but so does OS X. The fact that few write viruses for OS X does not mean that OS X is inherently stable, or MORE stable, than Windows.... If you install Windows XP on a PC, don't go on the internet.. and just run your "Word", and "Excel".... your chances of running into viruses is far less. 

As Mac users increase, prices will fall. As prices fall, user base will increase even more. As more and more people get exposed to Macs, Macs will receive more attention from hackers/viruses/etc... that make it just as vulnerable as Windows.

that's just my theory.. of course.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sure the number of viruses and hacks on macs are less because of the user base. But if we even had 3% of the windows viruses we'd have many more. Running both systems daily I'd have to say that OS X is in fact more stable and secure "out of the box" than windows.


----------



## howing (Nov 14, 2003)

> Ask anybody in IT and I guarantee that they will tell you of users who think the OS they're using is "Microsoft Word".


Some Mac users are not the most intelligent of computer users either. Mac OS X is so simple and elegant, that it really spoils its users into not even knowing the most basic fundamentals of computing. I've spoken to so many who don't even know what wireless internet is, they just know that their Macs can "automatically" do it. They have no idea about WEP, encryption, commands, or anything not GUI. And here's a better one, so many people on Macworld has asked about noises coming out from their HDD. OMG... would you not expect a moving disk to have ANY noise? Jeez... some even complain about a fan.... where I come from.. my Dell has 3 fans!!! my iMac is amazingly quiet! But to of these people.. they expect a computer to miraculously turn on/turn off without the slightest bit of noise and vibration... I've heard that the Cube is silent, has no fans, and convection cooled. This is what I mean by Apple spoiling it's userbase with their elegant, and good designs.... it's created such a standard that so few companies can match, and a userbase that's actually more ignorant than most... 

I grew up having a troubled PC, it would die on me every couple weeks, having viruses and all that stuff... that's how i learned DOS, VB, JAVA... to me, that's what "real" computing is about. it's like driving a manual, and an automatic. while so many would praise automatics as a life-saver, and hassle-free driving, automatic transmission to me is not driving..... it requires no skill, no willingness to learn, no art... nothing! stick it into D and just press the two pedals, one to stop, and one to go... that's similar in my opinion to OS X and Windows. One requiring you to trouble shoot and learn about computing in the process, and the other where everything's so fluid and automatic that it rips your entire computing experience. You could argue that having your PC crash on you every so often is hardly a positive experience, and yes... I'll agree to that. But it is an experience nonetheless. Positive or negative, at least I've learned something from it.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Macs will receive more attention from hackers/viruses/etc... that make it just as vulnerable as Windows. ..."

Certainly you're correct that there is nothing in the MacOS that inherently prevents a virus (rare on any platform today) or worm (all the most recent exploits are worms) infection.

But no OS, from any vendor, is as vulnerable as Windows. Auto-execution of a virus/worm/program is inherent in that OS's design and cannot easily be eliminated, as it stems from it's DOS legacy. No other OS allows it to the same extent, if at all.

In order for a Mac or UNIX or Linux or Solaris or whatever user to install an evil program, I have to actually install it. Clicking on what seems to be a dead link in a webpage or simply viewing an eMail is all that's needed to install a program on Windows, and the user has no feedback that it's happening; it's completely invisible to her. This is impossible on any other platform.

Malware infection requires a few steps:
1 Creation of the exploit- all computers are vulnerable
2 Distribution of the exploit- Windows machines that are infected do this automatically and invisibly, while all computers are vulnerable to distribution through the web or eMail, or through removable media like a CD-ROM.
3 Installation- This follows step 2 invisibly on Windows and cannot happen on another OS without somehow tricking the user to do it consciously.

The close relationship with steps 2 and 3 on Windows means that infection rates on Windows machines will always be many, many times higher than on any other OS; there can never be millions of infected computers within hours without this vulnerability in the OS, but this is common on Windows.

To eliminate that factor Microsoft will, sooner or later, be forced to do a complete rewrite of Windows which will make most of it's software incompatible. That incompatibility is the reason it hasn't happened yet, and why Microsoft is delaying that rewrite as long as they think they can get away with it.

Exactly how much "safer" we are on MacOS or Linux or Sun Java Desktop is difficult to measure; but it's an absolute truth that you are less safe on Windows than any other OS, and would be true even if there were 10x more viruses on those other platforms than Windows, because they self-install and self-run with Redmond's version and don't on the others.

Windows users can approach, but never equal, the safety of the other OS's by refusing to run Outlook, Internet Explorer, any of the MS Office applications, or perhaps any additional software such as Instant Messaging from Microsoft itself, which compound the problem enormously due to their close interaction with the OS.

Windows users might be able to equal other OS's by taking a very simple step which would force most worms and viruses to ask the user an installation question. Simply rename your default drive letter to anything except "C" drive (and do not use this drive letter for any other drive or partition), and every installer will have to ask the user for the correct pathname. Of course if they all did this, the virus writers would easily be able to work around it, so don't spread it around but do tell your family and friends.

[ April 04, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: gordguide ]


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Howloing, I think you're off-base, here. A computer user's knowledge of computers that comes OUT OF NECESSITY is NOT a good thing. For people WHO WANT TO roll their sleeves up and configure BIOS, they are free to go for it. But the personal computer (IMHO) should be destined to be easier and to INDEED "spoil the end-user". You're criticizing Apple because what? They make quiet computers?? This is a bad thing??! How about this "bad thing": my sister who own s an HP PC running XP _is afraid to install any software_ for fear of her PC screwing up. Both are based on ignorance, but of these two psychological conditions or "bad things" brought on as a result of using a particular platform, I'll take Apple's kind of "hell" over Microsoft's any day.

When you watch Star Trek, you don't see Dr. Crusher configuring the OS on her computer and screwing with the guts of her terminal or tricorder. That's Geordie's job, and Geordie can't mend a busted limb, either. Now, COMPLETE ignorance isn't healthy and, like a car, everyone should know how to at least check their oil and washer fluid levels on their computer. But learning a CLI? *NO WAY.* That's going in the opposite direction.

As for viruses on the Mac platform, no OS would ever be totally impervious to viral or hacking attack. Some OSes are less imperfect than others, however, and Mac OS X doesn't just benefit from 'security through obscurity". It has a lot more aspects that are more secure than Windows even if hackers were trying to burrow in. The choices Microsoft made when designing XP versus the choices Apple made with OS X are blatant in their repercussions. And, if a typical Windows user HAS TO learn the intricacies of Windows on account of shoring up the sins of the maker, then whose fault is that?

[ April 04, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Macaholic ]


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Gord, isn't renaming your C drive going to screw up the directory references of ALL your software -- and the OS, itself?


----------



## howing (Nov 14, 2003)

Macoholic, one thing needs to be clear. I'm not criticizing Apple at all here. As for your argument claiming that "the personal computer (IMHO) should be destined to be easier and to INDEED spoil the end-user"... well, to each their own. I like a little understanding into what I'm doing. Learning out of necessity is not always a bad thing. Learning is always good, in my opinion, no matter what the situation is. Of course, I've never said that Apple should be criticized for their designs.. All I'm saying is that Apple creates this "wonderful" sphere where users don't have to learn a thing about computing. Take that as it is... whether you think it's good or bad is your own opinion.



> But no OS, from any vendor, is as vulnerable as Windows. Auto-execution of a virus/worm/program is inherent in that OS's design and cannot easily be eliminated, as it stems from it's DOS legacy. No other OS allows it to the same extent, if at all.


As for this... I'm not so certain. I remember being very, very turned off when I found out that Macs automatically read a floppy when you stick it in as opposed to my older PC's which never did that.. I was wary that reading the disk could cause viruses. My first virus that I wrote back in highschool (for an assignment) was one such virus. It needed no installation. It was an executable file, one that could be executed as soon as the disk was read. Now, if that was in the Mac, I've always wondered what would happen. I never tried it though, of course.. back then, I couldn't afford a Mac.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

I don't think that Macs are more expensive than Dells; there's not that much of a difference (in terms of price, anyway) between a comparable Mac and Dell. There's a lot more variety, though, when it comes to Dell, which makes it easy to build a computer for a certain price point.

I can configure a reasonable (for me) Dell tower for about $1500, and get what I want and need out of a personal computer. If I want to configure a reasonable (again, for me) Apple tower, it's going to cost $2500.

I think this is what turns a lot of people away from Macs (I know it's one of the factors that discouraged me from buying a Mac); it's not that Macs are more expensive, it's that Apple isn't as flexible as Dell. If you want to buy a tower and only want to spend $1500, then you can configure a Dell to fit your budget, but you can't do the same with a Mac.


----------



## howing (Nov 14, 2003)

exactly!


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> My first virus that I wrote back in highschool (for an assignment) was one such virus. It needed no installation. It was an executable file, one that could be executed as soon as the disk was read.


Not sure what you're going on about. Inserting a floppy into a Mac results in that disk being mounted as a volume. No executable code is run without user intervention.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

a mac automatically executing the files on a floppy? Never heard that one.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Yeah. That's a new one on me with that floppy trick.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

Back on topic I think the 'consumer' line of Macs could do with some pricing that is a little more realistic for the average consumer. 

The price of the iMac is patently absurd. Yeah alright you get some great technologies and a unique form factor but the iMac is supposed to be the consumer line. You can almost get a G5 workstation for the price of the 17" iMac.

I don't care if Apple has to ditch the all in one concept to make it happen but the iMac line has to return to $1500 or less range before it will sell again. The iMac is a great machine but not at the current price point.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

> Of course there's no comparison when it come to the OS, but consumers don't really care about that.


I'd say it's more like they're OBLIVIOUS to it. If they did ANY research, or were counseled properly about their next computer purchase, they'd probably come to see a darned good option to the ills they have come to accept as normal -- thanks to Windows.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*a mac automatically executing the files on a floppy? Never heard that one.*

Although I've never seen it done witha floppy, CDs can be made with autorun code on them. Most of the time it's just going to open a finder window for the CD, but more can be programmed into it.

BUt the point is somewhat moot in OS X, because to move anything to or from anywhere sensitive enough to cause some serious damage to your installation it is going to have to at least ask for your administrator password, which the used has to enter manually.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

visual-q, that's my point exactly. the midrange iMacs can cost almost as much or more than the g5 workstation and thus are not selling well.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think Apple needs a lower priced Power Mac. I've got many, many Power Macs (and classics, too!), but they are just too pricey for me to buy new these days. The last *new* one I bought was a 6100/DOS (discounted to just under $3K)...

The last two computers I bought were PC's (a $300 Dell P4 for my wife and a AMD XP2400 for games). I would have loved a new PM, but I don't spend $2K+ for computers anymore...


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

The price point on workstations is fine. They're aimed at pros who know what they want and are comparable in price to what would have to be custom built to match them on the PC side.

Apple isn't even in the low range, and thy're overpriced in the midrange. I hate to say it but at the price point of an imac I expect you can do better with a PC as long as you know your hardware.

Of course there's no comparison when it come to the OS, but consumers don't really care about that.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Gord, isn't renaming your C drive going to screw up the directory references of ALL your software -- and the OS, itself? ..."

I routinely install Windows on D:
... it doesn't mind a bit.

Now, you would have to format the disk in fdisk that way and install the software into the D directories; you couldn't just change the pathname on an existing system and expect everything to work.

What happens is the installer asks you for a pathname every time; most people just hit return. In this case, you must edit the pathname to D from C. But a sneaky file's installer will always look for the system files on the C drive, and won't want you to know it's installing. Windows would, in this case, either open a dialog (notifying you of something going on) asking for the pathname or else simply fail to install.

It doesn't screw anything up. Most people forget (and Microsoft isn't keen on mentioning it) that the filename in Windows is actually the pathname. Microsoft doesn't really mention this because people think the 255 character limit on "file names" means they can write huge file names if they want.

C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\regdat.exe

is exactly the same as:

D:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\regdat.exe

because the filename is the pathname; they are the same. Every program's installer will write the correct pathname as the program is installed. A very few (poorly designed) programs will want you to install in a specific directory that includes "C" but usually it's just an annoyance; you have to specify the pathname when it complains.

Clicking on the icon always goes to the path from the filename. In this example the filename is 29 characters, not 6 as would show up on the desktop with extensions and path hidden (most people set Windows up that way).

As for the 255 character limit, imagine a file with a 20 character name nested in 10 folders with a 20 character name. That's nearly 500 characters; Windows can't handle that.

On a classic OS Mac, with it's 31 character file name limit, you could easily nest such a file 10 folders deep; the file name is just that. There is a limit to the number of folders you can go down to, but it's huge.

OSX does use pathnames similarly but not identically to Windows; there is a 255 character limit to any single component of the pathname and a 1023 character limit to the entire pathname; our example above would work.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

> Now, you would have to format the disk in fdisk that way and install the software into the D directories; you couldn't just change the pathname on an existing system and expect everything to work.


That's what I was driving at (pardon the pun). As you point out, you can change drive names in OS X at any time


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Even though OSX won't mind, it's still good practice to maintain UNIX conventions when running OSX.

Many programs that run in OSX come from UNIX/Linux and they won't like either spaces in the drive name or changing that name so that the pathname and drive name no longer match.

If you never plan to run open-source programs, or programs that run on the BSD UNIX core OS and X11 it won't matter, usually. However some programmers might come from a UNIX background and won't account for this behavior.

If we remember, there was one OSX update early around 10.2 that caused some problems with "improperly" named drives (in that case, spaces in the drive name) and Apple had to pull the update and fix it.

By "improperly" I mean improper for UNIX but OK for OSX.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... a mac automatically executing the files on a floppy? Never heard that one. ..."

It doesn't work now, but there was a time (System 6) when Macs loaded the OS from floppies; early Mac's didn't have hard drives at all. In the early 80's there were quite a few annoying but usually harmless viruses for System6 Macs that loaded from floppies because of this.

In fact, easily 90% of the known Mac viruses are System6 only.

The most recent true virus for Macs attacked System7 systems that had a legacy from the autoloading of floppies on CDs; you could select "enable CD-ROM autoplay" in preferences and that virus would load when you popped in a CD. It actually sneaked onto one of the old MacAddict CDs.

It wasn't particularly harmful either, but somewhere along the line (not sure when, but I think System 7.6 or so) this option was disabled by Apple for this very reason.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think i meant generally. Both windows and macs started off reading their OS files by booting from floppies, my IBM XT did from a big 5 1/4 floppies anyways. The original comment I was responding to seem to insinuate that macs had this unique way of mounting and executing files from a floppy, and not windows. When in fact you can do a fair amount of damage even to this day with an autorun cd with a virus on it on windows. When I installed XP autorun was enabled by default.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Here's a link that's relevent to this topic comparing an eMac to a bottom-end Dell feature for feature.

MyMac.com


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

I think that Macs are way too expensive if Apple does want more switchers maybe the answer is in a low priced tower around the 900.00 mark, something small like the computer pictured below include a decent video card with a vga plug so the switchers with old Dell's and clone machines are not forced into buying a new monitor right away and keeping there buying into the Mac platform cheaper and allot easier.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I just switched to Mac's for the first time. 

Like many PC users I learned everything I know about hardware, Windows, and troubleshooting because of the constant trouble I would run into. Windows XP solved many of the previous problems with the platform, however it is a clunky and bloated piece of software. 

Security, even in XP, is still a nightmare. 

Now as a university student and as a young journalist I don't have time to deal with getting my computer to work. I need to do my work on it, pronto. 

Deadlines are everything and I was sick of system crashes and viruses. MSBlast was the straw that broke this Wintel donkey's back. 

Now I have a spankin new G4 933 iBook. It's blazing fast compared to my old PIII 866 (which proves Mhz means nothing). I have MS Office X (which still crashes but at least it doesn't drag the whole system down). 

As far as affording the Mac goes, the Apple Loans with 6 month deferred payments sealed the deal. I was able to buy the iBook and start using it this semester and I can pay it off over the summer. 

That plus the education discounts (which no other computer maker offers as simply as Apple does) sealed the deal. 

OS 10.3.3 + iLife = One happy creative student

Maybe Mac's cost more. But they are well worth it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> OS 10.3.3 + iLife = One happy creative student
> Maybe Mac's cost more. But they are well worth it.


Great post ... shout it from the rooftops, brother!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Awesome story, NBiBooker.







Welcome to _The Better Way_. Chances are that you'll find that the hardest part about using a Mac is telling PC users you use a Mac.  You presumably had some initial fears and learned the facts about the Mac platform and made "the gutsy" -- which is easier than people think -- move to the Mac. Congrats! And welcome to ehMac!


----------



## howing (Nov 14, 2003)

guys... i'm new to this whole Mac thing.
all i remember was that when i put a disk in.. the disk was read, and it "mounted" on the screen.
with a pc.. it won't read unless i ask it to. (dos: a:\)

jeeez


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

are macs too expensive? yes, they should be FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!









then i could stop crying myself to sleep every night because i dont own a powerbook..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well let that be a lesson to you.  

Mounting a disk is just that, it just makes the disk available to you on the desktop. In windows it's pretty much the same thing, but you have to open explorer to access it. Mounting the disk doesn't read, and execute what is on the disk. Big difference.

Welcome to the world of macs.


----------



## howing (Nov 14, 2003)

groovetube, reading a disc can cause autorun to execute. a virus can be embedded in an autorun script. mounting a disk is "reading" the disk... 

back on subject: all i know is, if i've got $800 bucks to spend on a computer... no matter how much I want a Mac, I can't afford one.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

not so fast howing.

mounting a volume is NOT the same thing as running code on that volume. can you give any examples of an autorun CD for OS 9 or OS X?

i've never encountered one, and i'm pretty sure there's no such thing for OS X


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

You can make an autorun CD in Director.. or at least you could.. I did a few years back with OS9. (I think, I'm doubting myself now, it's been a while..)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Howing, for $800 bucks you can get yourself a really nice used Mac. I think a good used Mac is much preferable to whatever sort of low end PC you're going to find for $800. As you said yourself in an earlier post in this thread, you don't get much in those cheap PC's.

The problem is that most PC users don't understand this. A friend of mine thinks I was nuts to pay about $900 Cdn. for a 2.5 year old Power Mac, probably because he's comparing that to a 2.5 year old PC, which you might get 200 bucks for. But I think I got a lot of value for that 900 bucks, the biggest plus being that I can run OSX on it. Wasting my time on Windows is not something I ever want to have to do. You get what you pay for.

That being said, I wish Apple had something in the low, low range, too, as a few others have said. I think they were close to that market a few years ago with some of the CRT iMacs.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Not true, you can build a pretty killer PC for a little more than $800, certainly NOT lowend. (I say this only as the machine itself, the OS still sucks). Here's an example for what you could get:

ASUS P4P800 Intel 865PE - $137
Pentium 4 2.8E GHz "Prescott" 1MB cache - $258
KingMax 512MB PC-3500 DDR433 SDRAM - $145
Maxtor 120GB S-ATA - $145
ATI Radeon 9200 128MB DDR - $124
SB Audigy 2 ZS - $119
Mid Tower w/ 400W PSU - $ 35

I just quickly threw together these parts from Canada Computers. The total for this would be $963 without tax. Buying this stuff at another store you can most easily get a discount if you buy all of the components at the same store. Compare the system above to what you could get for the same price in a Mac. I think if this could run OSX, it would be a MUCH better system than a Mac you can buy with $800-900. And maybe even with Windoze, it's still a really nice machine, hate to say it, but it's true. What could you get for the same price in a Mac?


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Nice computer. Goona run any software on it? Don't see that in your figures.

And yes, if all you do is play solitare and surf the web (like one person I know), a Windows box is a good choice. Get serious about work, and other things come into play.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I bought a PC last year sometime. It is worth about half price now. If I had of bought another mac it would still be worth a fair price. PC's are better for games in my opinion. There is more selection in that department. As for anything else, I dont think PC's are better. XP sucks, and LINUX is not my cup of tea. It is a little too tricky. So in the long run PC's are more expensive because they go down in price with age.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

> Nice computer. Goona run any software on it? Don't see that in your figures.


What's your point? I'd run the same software on it I'd run on a Mac. Show me a used Mac that includes software. Of course if you buy a new Mac you're going to get software, it will also be double the price.

I'm not saying PCs are better. Compared to a used Mac you can get for the same price, you're getting a better machine there. I've owned both. I know what a PC is capable of. Yes, the OS sucks. But a system like the one above can handle all the multimedia apps you can throw at it, just as well as a lot of Macs, and in some cases MUCH BETTER. Show me a Mac at that price that's better, that "includes software". Please...



> And yes, if all you do is play solitare and surf the web (like one person I know), a Windows box is a good choice. Get serious about work, and other things come into play.


Solitaire and web surfing? Ok then...

[ April 06, 2004, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: kloan ]


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I paid $200. for my Beige a couple of years ago,
But it was in a very basic state when I got it.
(Basic meaning...A 233 mhz Zif and very little ram)

I've been through two Zif upgrades,
CDRW, RAM, H.D. and a video card upgrade.
My latest Zif being a G3/500 mhz chip.

I'll most likely give up on the Zif upgrades
and move up to a G4 in the near future.
(My audio needs are increasing)

In anycase if you need a workhorse,
Then get a Beige to start with and work your way up.

Dave


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Kloan
You're chasing your tail a bit here. You say the PC is a better machine - but the OS sucks.

Well, I work with both all day, every day running all sorts of apps. The question you are not asking is "what will a machine be used for?"

To me the OS is king as long as the machine is not slow using the apps that are important to you. In this forum someone recently sold an 800 eMac for around $900 bucks. On paper it's not nearly as powerful as your PC. But, and for me this is a big but..it has OS X. Oh yes, it includes Appleworks and iLife. For a heck of a lot of people that is a more than adequate machine.

Go ahead and do your paper specs all you like. Macs can be great value if you buy what you really need and you factor in the productivity, ease of use and resale value.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Then there is Lindows 
I saw a couple of boxes at tigerdirect with this OS installed.

Dave


----------



## electricjeezus (Feb 28, 2004)

Just the fact that I've never run any sort of virus software, in the 6 years of being a mac user. Is to me worth the extra cash.
Oh yeah, besides OSX is the greatest OS in the freakin' land, even Bill Gates know that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> ASUS P4P800 Intel 865PE - $137
> Pentium 4 2.8E GHz "Prescott" 1MB cache - $258
> KingMax 512MB PC-3500 DDR433 SDRAM - $145
> Maxtor 120GB S-ATA - $145
> ...


I don't see any kind of cd or dvd burning device there. And what kind of power supply is that going to be if the both the case and 400 watt power supply is only 35 bucks? Yea. Real good.
Where is the firewire ports? Oh, yea, by the way, unless you figure on running a hacked copy of win XP pro, add another 4 or 5 "C" notes for the OS. Because generally when you buy a used G4 duallie (or others) you get the OS X discs with it. Now how good a deal is it? Oh yea. Now you have to work in windows. Great deal now  

I run both a PC and a mac daily in what I do, and I don't use macs for it's hardware really, I use it for the OS.

Although I still think a headless consumer mac is needed to compete.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Pelao, I didn't say PCs are better, you've misread. What I am saying is that for the same amount of money you can get a much faster (new) system, which to a lot of people is important. I actually forgot about the eMac. $900 for the G4 800 is a lousy deal for whoever paid it though, considering that the new 1Ghz goes for $1099. Anyway, I totally agree OSX is the best OS on the market, but a machine like the one I pieced together is still fully capable of running many processor intensive apps quite well, games especially. What does an eMac come with, 32MB video?



> I don't see any kind of cd or dvd burning device there.


Damn, I knew I was forgetting something... well I did pick some of the higher end components.. downgrade to an 80GB hard drive, and that clears up enough for a CDRW, or downgrade as well the ram to pc2700 and get a dvdr. I've bought cases which include the power supply for cheap and I've never ever had a problem with them.

Yeah, damn right it'd have a "hacked" version of XP. I'd rather stick my head in a garbage disposal that ever PAY for Winbloze.

[ April 06, 2004, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: kloan ]


----------



## The Librarian (Apr 11, 2003)

osx is the greatest, but it's not perfect. far from it, any way you look at it.

macs re-sell higher than pc's because they retail higher, and for the most part, work. 

folks actually work on pc's, people. get your head out of your ass and join the 21st century. snobbery is dead. and for pete's sake, learn how to configure windows, or befriend someone who does. it's good to learn. think different.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> Oh yeah, and I've got news for you saints, a good % of PC users use "hacked" versions of XP. I'd rather stick my head in a garbage disposal that ever PAY for Winbloze


ahhh. It all makes sense now...

guess you can save a lot of money then...

but whats the point if you're in an OS you don't even want to pay for? Is that a good deal? Did you win? YaY! You saved 500 bucks on a computer that uses an OS that you wouldn't pay 2 bucks for! Wooo! 

If was all about hardware exclusively, I don't know that I would have switched. PC users are soooo hardware centric. I know because I am one too.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I prefer Mac, and when I can afford one again I will most certainly buy one. I was all set to pick up a new Powerbook in Feb. before I ran into financial troubles. But that's besides the point. Sure XP's not worth paying for, because how much do they want for it? $299US!! Not worth it.. but in it's defense, it's a helluvalot better than '98!









Someone please prove me wrong, that for the same price, you can buy a Mac that's superior to PC. Show me.


----------



## davidslegend (Jan 6, 2004)

Hi,

Macintosh's are a really expensive starting option for most & people are leary to buy one at first 'cause they don't know what software is available for them. If you want to play games then forget about buying a Mac-let's be truthful, the WinPC is the dominent on game resources. Why is this so-some say that it's Apple's fault cause they keep changing their OS making it hard for developer's? I don't know but, you tell me??   

People are forgetting that Window's are selling off their 32 bit processing stuff & making way for the new 64 bit architecture. Sure, I could buy a Pentium 4 for the price of a Celeron right now...I mean the package deals are amazing. So until the new G5 macs come out against the new Intel 64 stuff is it really worth betting the farm on what's the best deal?

I got my imac really cheap (under 1000) at a time were I had cash cause I had to break my RRSP's up to survive. Otherwise I wouldn't be part of this unique community or I'd be only dreaming I'd use a Macintosh one day.









Buying a used mac would have been a real leap of faith for me cause if you get into trouble who do you call your friend at work who's a PC guy or a 80$ tech/Apple repair guy.

Just my thoughts....wish I could be more positive about the state of the Macintosh consumer acceptableness.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Linux is free only if your time is worthless.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Wait, I thought that advocating software piracy was not allowed on ehMac. is it ok if it is Windows software?

Oh, and assuming you want the full versions WinXP Home is $299 CDN and WinXP Pro is $499 CDN.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

About a year ago my Dad decided, at 78 years old, to get his very first computer. Just about the same time my best buddy decided to take the plunge. Eight months ago, the leader of our drag race team (a fiftyish hard core biker type) also made the leap into the digtal world.

Try as I might, I could NOT convince my Dad or my buddy to buy Macs. The biker...who usually listens to my tech advice...went for a Mac. (a MDD G4 1.25 single).

My dad has had untold grief with Windows, and he currently has a tech guy on retainer. He drops by every other week to get rid of viruses and unscramble everything for me old dad (he lives on a different island than me, or I'd do it).

My best buddy has suffered two complete meltdowns due to viruses and worms and the like. He lost almost all of his company records and all of his customers credit card numbers due to security flaws in the basic OS. Someone even stole his unlisted phone number and ran up a huge bill. He's still sorting it all out and his wife is the only one who uses the computer these days. He absolutely hates it.

Marve...the biker who bought the Mac...is having a blast! He flat out loves his machine and is getting quite adept at surfing online. His girlfriend is even making a pretty good vacation video with iMovie. She loves it too...and she uses a PC all day long at work.

Needless to say that Marve hasn't had any virus problems. Or any other grief, for that matter.

Bottom line?

The first two examples paid slightly less for their machines initially. But they've had to buy extra software and have both spent lots of money getting problems worked out.

Last example paid more up front, but is having a gas while playing with a system that's "as friendly as a golden retreiver puppy" as he puts it. It also hasn't cost him one red cent since he first bought it, either.

Macs are a little more expensive to buy, but far cheaper and far less grief, in the long run. 

That's a slam dunk as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well I guess it's really about choices. For most people, they hit the power button, and when the computer boots up, they open email, money programs, web browsers, and do the usual things people use computers for, and when they're done off it goes. They don't bank on learning how to configure the OS and tweak it so that it is stable, secure, and continues to run relatively problem free. That's the problem. I was an avid builder/overclocker from the PC world, I started overclocking in the 486 days, but now that my business is busy as heck, I don't have time to clear spyware, install configure firewalls, blah blah. Windows works quite well generally and isn't half bad really if you know what you are doing. So if you want to save dough for the time being and you don't care that you are using a hacked version of windows, sure you can get away with saving 500 bucks or some more. There's no arguement there.
If M$ can put out an OS that doesn't require the intense amount of tweaking and maintainance to keep it running out of the box, then it would be far better for people (and put a lot of tech guys out of work). Apple should really be pushing that side of things waaaaaaaaaay more.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

macnutt,

I have run into similar experiences with a couple of my friends.

Both asked my advice as to what computer they should buy. After finding out what they intended to do (digital photos, internet, possible video editing) I of course suggested a Mac. If they wanted to do gaming I would have suggested a PC.

Both bought a PC.

No more than two weeks later and two days apart, they both came to me and said "I should have listened to you".

One spent over two weeks trying to connect his digital camera (to this day I'm not sure if he ever has) and the other had nothing but problems like getting on the internet. Later he found out his low cost PC didn't come with a modem







As well, his brand new cam corder isn't able to connect to the PC either and he had troubles with his digital camera.

When I look at the software in a computer store that sells both PC's and Macs, I can see that 95% of the software for PC's are games, where 95% of the software for Macs are productivity. Kind of tells you something. Doesn't it?

I have compared building a PC that was exactly like my Mac (as far as hardware goes) - five USB ports, two FireWire ports, Gigabit Ethernet, DVI Video, etc. and the Mac comes out cheaper.

Combine that with the ease of use and no viruses we have one awesome machine.

I just hate it though that the general public puts their blinders on when it comes to computers. In their minds there is no other OS than Windows. I'm not saying that there is no other OS than Mac either, but I am aware that there are other choices out there. The general public does not take their time to explore all of the options - Windows, Linux, Mac OS? Or to find out which platform would be better for their needs. I have worked with all of the above and I have educated myself as to which platform I prefer - Mac OS. I just wish people would educate themselves instead of listening to the "Computer Guy" or price.

BTW, my accountant is a BIG PC pusher. He laughs at my choice of platforms. The last time he met with me, he started in about my Mac. I just looked at him in the eye and asked "How long has your PC been down this month with all the viruses going around"?


----------



## Scott M (Apr 2, 2004)

Um, I didn't have the patience to go through the entire thread, all apologies, so I'll just contribute 2 cents on the topic itself, which is: are Macs too expensive?

It's a hard question to answer. It really depends on what having a computer is worth to the user. My computer ownership path has been as follows: Commodore Vic-20, C64, Amiga 2000HD, IBM PS/2 486 DX/20, 333 MHz iMac, 500 MHz iBook, 1GHz eMac. Many of these machines were rather cutting edge for their time and as a result cost more than some of the alternatives. And as you will see, only one of them was a PC, not so much because I hated PCs, but because I didn't really need one- I played gamed and did low-level word processing on everything before that (although I could have done some wacky video stuff on the Amiga had I the ambition).

I got the PC from a correspondence course in graphic arts, which taught me how to use Windows 3.1, PageMaker, Netscape, and CorelDraw... all the things that real graphic artists never use.







But it was good enough to do a portfolio on and play some games and design my first webpages about 7 or 8 years ago. I eventually upgraded it to a P133 and gave it to my parents. Once I got a job in graphics it became obvious that I was going to need a Mac. I resisted at first because those were still the Amelio days and I was convinced the company would tank- I didn't want to live through the Amiga's fall again.

Fortunately, we got the iMac instead, and while there were some growing pains between OS 8/9/X, the machine I have now- a "consumer" machine no less- is one rock solid platform for all my graphics work, video editing, publishing etc. I have a freelance business that I know I would not be able to manage without a Mac- the PC versions of many of these apps simply are not reliable in my experience, and that is primarily because of Windows. And even if they were, any service bureau I take my files to would scratch their heads and ask why I created them on a PC.

So it's a matter of cost of ownership. I average a new Mac every 3 years or so now, to try to keep learning and taking advantage of new technologies. I buy them on a lease basis (although the latest one is an Apple Loan) so I don't have to plunk down 3 grand at once, and I can write off the machine (or most of it) as the sole proprietor of a business. 

If I still had that 6-year-old iMac I know I could still use it for something worthwhile- how many 6-year-old PCs can one say that about, or even a 3-year-old PC? The initial outlay is more, to be sure, and Apple's markup is high, but the OS (and its general stability), included iLife software, and longevity of the computer is worth the price to me. I don't need to have the latest Radeon card and I certainly don't need a game machine- that's what my PS2 is for. And I don't need a dual processor G5 or an Xserve either; for me, those Macs ARE too expensive.


----------



## Josh (Mar 12, 2002)

> Sure XP's not worth paying for, because how much do they want for it? $299US!!


Linux is much better than windows, and its FREE!!!! That takes quite a bit off the cost of a new computer!


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Yeah, but it's also really tough to use if you don't already know what you're doing, or have a lot of time and patience to figure it out.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Great stories in this thread.

I actually have more Mac using friends than PC users, being mostly arty types who get it. Many of them I have convinced personally to go with the Mac when they were getting their first computer .

One couple, who didn't heed my advice and went with the lure of the cheap PC a couple of years ago, admitted to me how sorry they were. In a couple of years they've gone through 2 PC's because of hardware problems and have had lots of trouble with virii and just plain hair-pulling usability issues. They told me they'll be getting a Mac, when they can afford another computer. Every one of my friends who went with a Mac is very happy with it.

A couple that I know, where the wife was doing all the business stuff on a PC and the husband got an iBook on my advice, now use the iBook for most of the work, except some of the accounting. The wife is thinking of switching, but is getting pressure in the opposite direction from the person that they have to hire to come over every month and keep the PC going. He says a Mac won't work for them. I guess the PC works for him, keeping him in work. One thing she has done is disconnected the PC from the internet to avoid virus problems.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

> Wait, I thought that advocating software piracy was not allowed on ehMac. is it ok if it is Windows software?


PosterBoy, instead of trying to raise a red flag, why don't you take your whistle blowing somewhere else. No one is advocating the piracy of anything. All I'm simply saying is that me, personally, as one individual, what I do, is not pay for Windows. I am not encouraging anyone, at anytime to do the same. I am simply stating my opinion on the useless OS.

Now that I'm on the topic of Winbloze again, turned my computer on today to discover I have freakin Adware on here, even with SpyBot..it's been clean for months.. can't update it either because their servers are loaded.. most likely because everyone else is trying to update their copies too.. stoopid Winbloze... no, actually, stoopid people developing these attacks.

I agree with everyone thus far that has said Macs are better. 100%. And if you CAN manage to wait and save up enough, for sure get a Mac. In the end it'll cost a lot less in aggravation.. but everybody here already knows this..

[ April 07, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: kloan ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

If you're not advocating software piracy, you need to factor Windows into the cost of your home built PC.

Your total thus far is $963, adding the retail WinXP Home would make it $1263, (already more than an Combo Drive eMac), adding the rest of the features to bring it up to par with even a Combo Drive eMac would could bring it up to $1500 - $1600 price mark, and that's not even counting iLife.

I think jfpoole has it right when he says this:
<blockquote>I don't think that Macs are more expensive than Dells; there's not that much of a difference (in terms of price, anyway) between a comparable Mac and Dell. There's a lot more variety, though, when it comes to Dell, which makes it easy to build a computer for a certain price point.

I can configure a reasonable (for me) Dell tower for about $1500, and get what I want and need out of a personal computer. If I want to configure a reasonable (again, for me) Apple tower, it's going to cost $2500.</blockquote>

If you could custom configure Apple machines the same way you can configure Dells, would they be more attractive? Probably, and I don't think it would be so hard to maintain compatibility that OS X has either. Of course, a lot of the features that you can swap in an out of a Dell are most times built onto the motherboard of a Mac, which would make it harder to switch systems. Maybe the "personality card" system (or something similar) deserves another look.

Oh, and just because "a good % of PC users use "hacked" versions of XP" (Yes, I saw this before you edited it out) doesn't mean it's okay, no matter how much you dislike Microsoft of Windows.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Meh, either you pirate or you don't.. I've never been afraid to admit to it, and I do. But you're right, factor in the OS and it's not all that hot.. I retract my previous statements. All hail Mac.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Eh. I've done it too, but it's still not okay, I pretty much always end up buying them after the fact, though.

And for what it's worth, I don't always like Apple, nor Steve Jobs (though he is a good public speaker). Personally, I think his "Vision thing" gets in the way of Apple's business sense sometimes.


----------



## Scott M (Apr 2, 2004)

I'll plead the fifth on piracy- I'm a graphic artist, let's leave it at that- but for what it's worth, since buying my latest computer I have shelled out the bucks for full versions of Soundtrack, iLife and Final Cut Express (although that last one was on sale, and good thing too, it's a bit of a dog).

I do like Steve Jobs, because he's (1) mercurial, (2) probably the reason we still have Macs today, and (3) the CEO of Pixar too, and they kick all kinds of ass.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

A curmudgeon would say:

Macs cost what they cost. Complaining about it won't move Apple. If you can't afford a new one, buy a used one. If you have to have an el-cheapo brand-new computer, buy a PC and rot in Windows hell.









Cheers :-> Bill


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

Even though it's already 6 pages long and flogged like a dead horse, what the heck, I'll give my 2 cents since I'm a new switcher.

I don't necassarily find Mac's too expensive, however they do cost more than an equivalent PC. My iBook was $200 more than my HP laptop, and I had to buy the Airport Express card on top of that for another $150. I also have half the memory on the iBook, so I'll spend another $150ish to bring that up. The iBook also has a smaller screen, by an inch, th HP is 15". So the iBook ends up being about $500 more than the equivalent Intel laptop.

Performance wise, they are about the same, however if the cpu on the mac was clocking at 2.4 GHz, I'm sure it would blow the HP out of the proverbial water.

The draw for me is the OS. I like having the power and stability of unix under the hood, yet have the simplicity of a GUI on top. Linux is almost there when you use Gnome, but it can still be a bit difficult to work with at times. I also am a bit of an anti-establishmentarian, so I like enjoy going against the grain and being different from all of my peers. I only know one other person who uses a Mac, and he's largely responsible for pushing me over the edge.

FWIW.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Let me throw in my .02 here and look at it from another perspective. All of us here, to varying degrees, find Macs expensive or not. That's not the important point.

*The important point is that 97 percent of other computer buyers do!* They've voted with the wallet and that's the only opinion that counts.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't think they've voted with their wallet over price. I think it is many other factors like the usual myths about macs not being compatible/no software blah blah that scare many off. Look how popular Dell is. You're telling me dell is way cheaper?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

macnutt,

Somehow,







*+*







just doesn't add up


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Good points, Groovetube.

People buy PCs because that's what THEY THINK they should buy. If they knew what the hell they were doing, they'd think twice.

You what I have found? I have found that MANY of the "switchers" that I come across were people _who really knew Windows and PCs_. They ultimately got frustrated or peed off with Windows and knew enough about tech in general to finally move beyond their bias and have the balls to look at the Mac platform in an educated and objective manner -- and saw a better way to go and switched.

Stupid people don't "switch". Smart people do. There are A LOT of stupid people out there.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Interesting point, Macaholic...so,in looking at the million fewer Macs that were sold since 1996 per year...does that mean that people became more stupid? Even if no one switched over from PCs and Apple was selling to people replacing their machines from 1996 we shouldn't be having a million fewer Macs sold right?

As for pricing..well, I surfed on over to both the Apple and Dell sites. Looking at the lowest-end offerings (eMac and Dimension 2400 Pentium) the price differential was about C$400.

I only configured a minimal system for someone who wants only to surf the web, do email and some simple tasks. You can fool around however much with configuration programs but no matter how u cut it, one reason that Macs aren't selling is because of the price.

I was remiss in saying or giving the impression that that's the only reason.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

I think Groove hit it on the head sort of - I think poor marketing has put the Mac where it is or more to the point, where it isn't.

I mean, Linux is being marketed better than Apple is right now. I get more people ask me how to switch to Linux than they do Mac. Largely because they can run it on an Intel (PC) machine, but they know the name and that gets the thought process started.

Distribution network is also an issue, at least around here. I had very limited options when it came to "where" to buy. Futureslop has limited models and quantities online, but the London store didn't have them in stock and they know nothing about them (or PC's for that matter). Best buy doesn't sell them and neither does any major retailer. So I'm forced to go to an Apple dealer. They all charge the same price pretty much and the only discounts it seems come from Apple themselves. There's no competition. I also felt like I was shopping in a specialty boutique, which I guess in a way, I was.

I don't know if Apple is being cautious in this regard, but I think that if they advertised to the masses, and then made them available to the masses, the prices would come down to acceptable levels. However, for those of you who care about resale value, well, that too would diminish.

What do I know, I'm just a developer, not a marketer. The ads I remember for the new G5 were neat, but didn't do much to convince me that it would play well in a world largely populated by Windows and Intel. I think that needs to change.

Until then, yes they are expensive, more so than their PC counterparts.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

I disagree that people don't know of Apple.

Apple Computers, and it's logo, is the second-most recognized logo/company in the world (Right under Coca Cola).

It's the impressions they have about that need improvement.

As well, if someone has a PC, why spend more money on a new machine if they can just switch operating systems (And to one that is Open Source and FREE to boot!).

It has little to do with marketing of Apple Computers.

Another reason fewer Macs are sold lately is due to how long people wait to upgrade. This is nothing new. Macs hold their value longer, not just in resale price but in usability.

Case in point. ME. I bought a G4/450 Sawtooth model Tower back in September 1999. I have not upgraded to a new machine since. This is over 4 years now. And with an upgrade card, I can keep my system running well for another few years (at a small investment of about $500 CAN).

WinTel machines, however, are upgraded much more frequently. 

Another case in point. Adobe.

I was there for 1 year (a year contract) and in that time, we saw 2 serious upgrades for their PCs (The Macs however, did not require such an investment). And I don't mean upgrades in order to test the latest software they were making. This was for regular joes in the company responsible for administration and other more "mundane" elements when it comes to running a business.

And by serious upgrades, I mean HUNDREDS of laptops were purchased to replace the previous ones.


----------



## TCB (Apr 4, 2003)

Hardware is way overpriced....let's face it...it's behind. The reason I buy macs though is for the software...the OS is what seals the deal for me.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

And Harley Davidson is on that list of logos as well, which I beleive is in the number two spot now, however, I might be wrong there.

I disagree totally about the marketing. People know the logo, but that's it. They don't know anything about the machines, and information is not as prevalent as it is for PC's. Where does the average person get their information from? If I remember my marketing 101, advertising starts the process of information gathering. They see a commercial, they go to the store to check it out. They ask some guy in a big box retailer about the G5, he says we don't sell them, and then proceeds to tell them all the virtues of the latest Intel PC. Now, Apple, like it or not, just got left in the dust. And that's the way it happens. Most people are too lazy to go any further.

And as far as replacement cycles go, well, I've been in this industry for over 10 years and as I see it, 2 things are propogating the replacement/upgrade of PC's. There IS more software developed for the PC than Mac - and that is fact. Most of the large vendors I deal with don't support Mac, but they are releasing ever demanding software at phenominal rates requiring more memory, faster access, bigger HD's, faster CPU's etc. etc. And I'm not even talking about the gamer's who want that ultimate video card to play the latest and greatest shooter.

To a lesser extent the other thing is that the component makers, the ATI's, the Western Digitals, the memory manufacturers are all starting to finally play well together, and gradually PC's (not Windows) are getting more stable and people upgrade to that more stable product.

It all boils down to marketing. The PC went down one path and Apple chose another. Apple uses a channeled distribution market and the PC makers are dropping their wares in every big box outlet in the world. I'm surprised my local grocery store doen't sell them yet.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

Oh and one more thing Strongblade,

Leafs in 5 pal


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

It sounds to me like you are talking more distribution than marketing. I'll grant you that Apple COULD improve their marketing, but they would have to match it with distribution.

In your example, you have a person see an Apple ad and go to a store than happens to not have that product. I can reverse that and have the person see a Dell or Gateway ad and then go to IKEA and buy furntiture and not a computer (even though they may have mock-up computers there in their displays.

If they see an Apple ad and go to a store than sells both Macs and PCs, and the salesman convinces them to buy a PC, despite their initial interest in buying a Mac, THEN I agree Apple would need to improve their marketing. But at the sales-floor level, not necessarily the tv/radio ad level.

If an ad DOESN'T make you want to run out and buy the Mac (or worse, makes you want to run out and by a WinTel box) then the marketing of the product via tv/radio ad is not working and needs improvement.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

> Oh and one more thing Strongblade,
> 
> Leafs in 5 pal


Ummm... sure. I don't like sports so i don't really care either way...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I never understood why Apple, doesn't make commercials that depict office situations where the PC guys are in hell, and the mac miraculously is just as compatible, has all the software, and is running stable while everyone is "battening down the hatches" in the next wave of viruses, or registry bloating, or whatever. It seems to me whenever I talk macs with PC guys, when I tell them basic things that dispell the myths, they're suprised. You'd think they know, but they don't. They really don't. That's what Apple needs to break through. No ad campaign of Apple's I've ever seen really even makes a stab at that.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

I think that Apple is very careful when making ads not to try and piss off 'competitors'. They tried something like that back in the late eighties. An ad caleld "Lemmings" which drew alot of flack.

Although I agree that an aggressive "Macs at Work" campaign would probably help Apple in the long run, I think there would be backlash (deserved or not) from other companies if their products are shown in an unfavourable light.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I don't think that Apple isn't trying to market their machines, but I do think they aren't really trying hard enough.

Let's assume for the moment that they have as many ads on the air every week as the average PC maker, we'll say 10 for arguments sake.

10 Apple ads per week
10 Microsoft ads per week
10 Dell ads per week
10 Gateway ads per week
10 HP ads per week
10 Toshiba ads per week
Etc.

Notice a trend? Apple needs to step it up a touch because in terms of marketing their OS they aren't just competing with Microsoft, they're competing with every PC maker that says "our machines run Windows".

In terms of marketing their machines they aren't competing with any one maker they are competing with all of them.

Apple's logo is one of the most recognized in the world, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't keep the advertising going. The as they have (with the exception of the iPod ads, which are great) are cute but not really effective.

As many have said before, they need to showcase the OS and all of it's features as much as they need a guy blown through a wall into a tree by the speed of their hardware, but unfortunately I can't remember the last Apple ad that talked about their OS.


----------



## Scott M (Apr 2, 2004)

I guess it depends on what it is you think Apple wants to do. It's not realistic for them to expect to become the dominant platform in the PC world anytime soon, if ever, and they know that. The fact that their margins are as high as they are on their machines- which as several people have pointed out, can be used longer without upgrading and hold a greater resale value- allows them to manage their cash flow differently from the PC manufacturers who are undercutting each other trying to become a dominant brand in a competitive market. That cash is necessary for the tough times and for the R&D that has created so many fine products like iLife, the iPod, OS X, etc.

One thing they are marketing very well indeed is the iPod, which again costs significantly more than other products of its kind, but is so well-designed and beautiful to use that people don't care, especially when you factor in the cross-platform functionality of iTunes and the iTunes Music Store (which, sadly, we don't get to enjoy here yet).

Apple is doing just fine with their market share, folks, don't delude yourselves. They are laughing all the way to the bank and creating products that the end user, by and large, loves. They understand something that many manufacturers seem to be missing: people will pay more for good design, not just simple functionality.

[ April 17, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Scott M ]


----------



## mmontano (Apr 6, 2004)

Everyone's got an opinion. Me too.

Many kids toys (like a Big Wheel) are cheap because the parents attach the wheels (made in china), to the steering column (made in mexico) and apply the stickers (printed in the USA.) In other words parents do the final assembly!

PCs are like many toys (or many IKEA products), where the owners (or your corner store techie) do the final assembly and also act as the systems integrators. (Admittedly industry standards and volume makes it easier and cheaper.)

Apple charges a premium for doing that assembly and integration (incl. OS to hardware) for you.

For a small, lucrative but loyal part of the personal computer industry Apple provides the solution that best fits the needs. And this comes at a higher price.

Matthew 

Redmac.ca - Your Apple Macintosh Enhancement Source in Canada


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

Apple's low market share is a potential problem because they rely on IBM to deliver the Power PC processor.

For IBM to invest the necessary resources to compete whith PC processor manufacturers they must have an adequate market for it.

If Apple cannot deliver that market and buy enough processors to make it worthwhile for IBM then the future may not be so bright.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

"..,PCs are like many toys (or many IKEA products)..."

I resent that - my desk doesn't crash nearly as much as my PC


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I'm not sure if the low market share issue will impact too much on Big Blue's support for PowerPC processors, if there is money in it and they can keep selling it, they will. PowerPC processors are used in more than Apple computers, so Apple's marketshare isn't the only driving force (IMHO). 

Honestly I think the debate over the cost of Apple computers versus PC's is silly. For every good reason I could write about how Mac's are worth the money someone else will write about the next cheap PC from Walmart running Linux, or whatever. 

I don't care that PC's might be cheaper. I made a choice to go to Mac's and OS X because, well I could. It's nice to have a choice. I've found my experience with my iBook to have been far better than any PC I've ever owned. (I had three PC laptops before my iBook). I don't think I've been ripped off by the fact that my laptop may (and this is grey in my mind) have been more expensive than a new PC laptop. 

So if they are more expensive, save your money, work harder, get a second job, or do what I did and check out the Apple Loans through MBNA. 

But don't whine about the cost. Get over it. Live the iLife and forget about iCheap.


----------

