If they actually used desktop processors, they'd be able to compete. Instead, they're stuck on this path of all-in-one desktops using overpriced mobile technology. They're behind. They won't see quad-core processors and more than 4GB of RAM in consumer desktops until Intel releases the respective CPU's and chipsets for notebook systems. Similarly, they won't have fast TB hard drives until they're available for notebooks and the price comes down to a respectable level. The cheapest quad-core Mac you can buy is a Mac Pro, which is horribly overpriced. Even getting RAID with it is a joke ($800!!!). Here's a tip: off-the-shelf Intel-made motherboard DG45ID supports 7.1 analog audio with SPDIF, HDMI, DVI, 6 USB ports right on the board, 1394 (that's "Firewire" for you Mackies), eSATA on-board, 5 SATA 3Gbps connectors, Quad-Core support, PCI-e x16, Intel Matrix RAID (BIOS-based software RAID - which is all you need for RAID 0 or 1), etc. etc.....all for ~$120. Why they can't build a simple desktop computer with something like that is just ludicrous.

This has pretty much always been true when comparing Apple's low-end offering to Dell's and HP's low-end boxes. If you match feature for feature it's closer, but let's ignore that now and concentrate on the ASP "gap".

Despite the gap, it seems the last couple of years -- quarter after quarter -- Apple breaks its record for Macs sold. Has Apple done this because nobody knows about these "bargain" PCs, or because they didn't exist? Of course not.

There have always been people willing to pay for the Mac experience, and ignore those who would tell them something else is "just as good". What you're seeing is an increase in the number of people who believe a Mac is worth it. Some of us have felt that if more people would really try a Mac they'd feel the same way and, clearly, it's happening.

Whether this is because Apple is supposedly "cool", or there's an iPod "halo effect", or the Apple Stores, or Apple's ads, or Microsoft stumbling with Vista, or any other reason you care to name, a greater number of people are seeking out Macs specifically (not just "a PC") and know the difference.

Will this number of people ever exceed those who buy primarily on price? No. But those are people Apple can leave to others. Apple, as always. will have to keep moving forward. But they will not be driven down to razor margins like the Dells and HPs of the world. It would make zero sense for them to go there.

OS X is worth the $700 difference, easy. As near as I can tell, unscientifically, from talking to my PC-using friends, the 2 days/month they spend dealing with Windows BS compared to the two hours I spend each month dealing with OS X BS (yes, there's some) immediately pays for the difference, within the first month (if my time is worth $50/hour).

So maybe you only spend one day a month on windows BS. Then it pays for itself in two months. Either way, a Mac is a great deal.

Am I the only who gets reminded of McCain by these articles? He doesn't have much good to say about himself, so he attacks Obama. The Windows folks don't have much good to say about their machines, so they bad-mouth Apple. Why aren't they happier about the fact that their platform of choice is so cheap?

Chris Jones wrote: "The Windows folks don't have much good to say about their machines, so they bad-mouth Apple."

Yes, yes, there was just SO much bias for a post written on a MacBook Air running Leopard. So, what? Because you don't like the contents there HAS to be Windows bias?

Joe

Anyone who argues "average" sale prices in their reasoning rather than actually comparing machines with matching specs is a clueless prat. It's like arguing that the average sale at one new car dealership is outrageously more expensive than the average sale price of all other wheeled vehicles combined (a figure which includes sales of bicycles, tricycles and wheelbarrows).

From the rumors that I have heard, Microsoft is subsidizing the cost of the "low cost" laptops to be able to push out more copies of Vista. Hmm....

"Anyone who argues "average" sale prices in their reasoning rather than actually comparing machines with matching specs is a clueless prat."

You obviously have one of those short attention spans I've been reading about: Joe does, indeed, look at equivalent specced machines above (an Inspiron 518 and an iMac).

I'm not surprised by this, because Apple's pricing is always cyclical. It introduces a new, upgraded model which evens things out, usually to the point where people are paying a premium of 10% or so over equivalently-specced Windows machines.

However, it then maintains those specs until the next product rev, rather than continually incrementally upgrading them, as, say, Dell does. That means that over the lifetime of a product, the price differential increases until the point where Apple's machines are really overpriced for what you get - which is where we are now.

Maczealots would pay any price for their Kool-Aid and Jobs knows it.

OK, put aside Apple products for the moment. I just found this at Nextag.

HP Compaq RM252UA 17.0" Notebook
2.2 GHz - Centrino - 2.0 GB RAM - 120 GB Hard Drive - 17" Display - Windows Vista

Price: $2,799.00 at Amazon.com
$2,629.99 at MacMall.com

So if the $700 laptops are so great why would anyone ever buy an HP laptop for this much?

?????

Statistics are the easiest way to lie.

Apple doesn't play in the cheap as dirt market, get over it. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Apple users are quite happy being an elite and pain free minority. If you poor rabble came in and dirtied up our platform, we'd have to deal with all the diseases you bring with you, like Slammer, Blaster, etc...

By your cheap PC desktop or laptop and run whatever unpatched hacker copy of windows you like! Hope you enjoy your virus ridden spotbot, I have a nice built-in the MacOS spam filter and I can run any of those exe files pretending to be a jpg of Paris Hilton's missing undergarments.

Life is good here.

I pity the fool who buys the Apple product. I have always been a big fan of Windows and Dell computers.

Joe:

You walked right into Chris Jones' trap. He tried to get a rise out of you and got exactly that. Extremists in any "religion" whether it be Apple vs. Windows or Republicans vs. Democrats simply don't think rationally.

Fanboys should be ignored unless they have something intelligent to say.

Personally, I want a spade to be called a spade and you hit the nail on the head: Apple's HW is overpriced.

Case in point, I purchased a MacBook earlier this month with 1GB RAM. Quickly discovered this was inadequate and went to Apple's website. They wanted $400 for 4GB!!! I went to Amazon and some Crucial memory for Macs (4GB as well) was in my hands for $100 + $3 shipping.

Apple will never get deep penetration into either the consumer or enterprise markets until they can compete with the big 2 on price. Hopefully they figure this out soon enough.

@Ian Betteridge

"Joe does, indeed, look at equivalent specced machines above (an Inspiron 518 and an iMac)"

Surely a better comparison would be Apple's iMac and Dell's "iMac", the 'XPS One'? Which costs $1300.00 BTW.

For better or worse Apple just doesn't make a midrange tower desktop. Do you really think it is fare to compare a product from one company with a non-existent product from another?

MonkeyT, he did compare specs. Reread the article.

@Jim Magnus

I can understand why you have a website about headaches! :D

The present crop of Macs are getting a little past ripe - I have a 2 year old MacBook Pro, and the design hasn't changed substantially since almost a year before I bought it. This explains some of the hardware dis-parity.

There's also a (slightly fanboi) argument that Macs deliver an adequate "experience" with 2GB of RAM, less graphics memory, etc. while it doesn't matter what engine you've got driving Vista, it's still an ungainly pig - I love how my Vista explorer periodically restarts itself, a far cry improvement over how the entire system used to just lock up when Explorer crashed. In fairness, my MacBook also crashes, but the frequency is much less than what I experience with Dells in Vista or XP (and I use OSX much more.)

Macs (other than the MacPro) are expensive for the hardware you get, and arguably cheap for the software you get. If you value the software, and you're not out to buy the cheapest thing that will get you by, then there is a value argument for Macs. On the other hand, if you somehow need every possible GB of RAM and hard drive and GPU performance, you'll never beat a hand built Windows or Linux PC (unless you factor in the cost of your time to select components, do the assembly, recover from the missteps, etc.)

I'd lose all faith in the open market economy if a single source vendor didn't have higher prices than the commodity exchange.

I just wish Apple was honest with their pricing policy.

Their computer hardware "should" be sold for approx. the same price as PCs. After all they use exactly the same components under the hood these days but for some tweaking - we're not comparing a Ferrari to a Ford here) and their OS makes up the difference in selling price.

Now it's probably a darn good OS but that's a heck of a price considering over 90% of the worlds computers are productive enough to run the net, business....etc etc

I think if the PC buyer added in the bluetooth, the Wi-fi, and the camera (all things that many users actually want for todays computing applications and uses), and the value of the OSX, which is by far a easier, better, more stable experience, you would find the mac to be an equal if not superior value. Additionally, you can run Windows Vista bloatware, and any other OS you want on the mac.

Its the beginning of this game, but you are seeing the absolute effects of higher quality product making a real difference to consumers who cannot be fooled by the joke they have been getting played on the last several years.

Apple will continue to deliver better product, at higher margins, and win market share.

You will all eventually be using an Apple product. Its just better.

A female is a female, right? Why compete for a pretty one when a homely one's readily available? And there's really little difference between a healthy one and one racked with Herpes, right?

Some would select to have one hundred $1.00 hookers rather than one $100.00 hooker. Glad you're not my friend.

This article is also deficient because it does not analyze the effect of resale. You can buy a iMac for $1400 and sell it for $700 three years later. Buy a PC for $700 and it's worth maybe $200 three years later.

You do get those extras with Apple(camera, wifi, bluetooth) but on older (read almost out of date) hardware specs.

I still have XP but run Ubuntu almost exclusively on my $650 quad.

The OS is linux/unix based and free, stable, with no virus's to speak of.

ALL programs and utilities are free, no more reboots, not more defrags....

Oh yeah....did I mention that its Free?

It's about product design and software.

A Hyundai costs a lot less than a BMW for the same horsepower, same number of wheels, same passenger capacity, same color choices, same number of steering wheels, similar gas mileage, similar warranty, etc, etc. So why don't all BMW owners defect to Hyundai.

It's exactly the same with Mac vs. Windows PC

Should you pay twice as much for a Mercedes?

This analysis is like comparing the average selling prices between Mercedes and Ford cars. You're comparing two categories: luxury and commodity. There's no surprise that the luxury category consistently costs more and has higher margins. It takes a discerning (and wealthy) person to be able to appreciate the subtle differences in fit, finish, and quality of service and value them enough to pay a premium for them. We could have this same conversation about the "value" actually derived from a luxury automobile.

And incidentally, the best commodity computer in my mind runs Ubuntu Linux :)

To "John" who asked who would buy the 2800 dollars Windows PC with the 700 dollar machines? Very few people, but that doesn't make that 2800 dollar machine very useful to the retailer in selling many other machines. Most people don't realized how a highly expensive (read: overpriced) alternative increases sales for the lower priced alternatives. Restaurants, for example, trying to push a particular high-priced item will add an even more high priced item to their menu..one that they don't even expect to sell, to get people to buy that next highest priced item. Best Buy sets up their TVs in a specific way to get you to buy the TV they want you to buy.

And for some of the others, your uninformed bias against Vista is so transparent.Quit being fan boys and start being critical consumers. I have used OS X, I have used Vista, I have used XP. Vista and OS X are far more alike than they are different.

"I think if the PC buyer added in the bluetooth, the Wi-fi, and the camera (all things that many users actually want for todays computing applications and uses)..."

Ummm why would you add them? Go into your local Best Buy just for having a convenient sample of notebooks.... WiFI is in every last one of them, most have a camera, and Bluetooth is in half of them if not more.

When you pick a generic PC on a cheaper price, you'll be stuck with Windows and Linux software, which is a price higher than many of us can stomach.

I agree with the comparison between car brands. There is a difference between the products that goes deeper than the technical specs. I had few $700 HP laptops that ended up with broken power connectors. You don't see things like that with a Mac.

I like this comment:

"This article is also deficient because it does not analyze the effect of resale. You can buy a iMac for $1400 and sell it for $700 three years later. Buy a PC for $700 and it's worth maybe $200 three years later."

I see, so three years later you have lost 700 dollars on the Mac and 500 dollars on the PC. Of course, that should drive you to buy the Mac... oh wait...so after 3 years you have had 700 dollars (from the initial savings) sitting in the bank earning interest (even a pitiful 2 or 3 percent) and your net loss is 200 dollars less than buying the Mac. So you can buy a brand new PC that blows away ANYTHING on the market today for 700 future dollars while you sit with your mac waiting with your mac for 3 more years to recoup your expenditures. I see.

The only reason to buy a Mac is because they have the ability to run BOTH OSes, but apparently, here, that is not a feature because so many of you hate Vista so much that you would never use it. For me it would be a reason to consider a Mac... after the new models come out.

For many of us, the only thing we really need is a browser and, maybe, a media player. So why pay the extra money?

Another "dear John" message:

Perhaps the product you posted about isn't really for sale...

Do you think anyone will be buying this 1.15 million dollar doozy from Amazon?

http://www.amazon.com/HP-Compaq-Business-Desktop-dc7600/dp/B000PK3CB4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=pc&qid=1218031672&sr=1-1

@davesmall: Your Hyundai vs BMW argument fails because the hardware of a mac is not a higher quality than the hardware for a PC. Mac's are status symbols, and nothing more. Pay extra for it like you would a BMW, or buy the Honda/Toyota and get the same performance and same or higher quality.

It's really fairly simple, if you were to buy a PC for the same price as you buy a Mac you will not have the issues of running software as on a budget $500 pc. With PCs, for the price of a Mac you can buy the PC and the software too.

With a Mac I am more productive, so the price difference disappears in a few months.

Tom's hardware did a reasonable summary. Macs are not more expensive. Apple just doesn't make cheap no profit trash...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html

Long and the short is that I would pay treble for the OSX experience versus the awfulness of Windows

Nobody seems to have mentioned support. Apple has better support services that most (all?) other manufacturers.

"...the Dell is easily upgraded. Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Webcam are extra-cost options on the Dell."

I guess upgrading a Dell is free. Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Webcam cost 1$ each.

Another factor to consider. By avoiding the budget buyer, Apple's will remain a more secure platform.

Malware will target those 'less knowledgeable', putting it politely, Windows users.

It is those same budget PC's that are distributing the billions of spam emails daily... costing everyone. What price budget?

@Jim Magnus:

Who the hell needs your pity?

That Yugo purchased in 1986 was a steal, and it got great mileage. Smart choice, wasn't it?

Consumers aren't stupid -- they learn from mistakes. Look at Apple's sales growth and it says they are doing something right. The fact that low-end Wintel machines are priced dirt cheap should surprise no one. You get what you pay for.

Ultimately, in the marketplace, it all comes down to perceived value. As long as people feel that Macs are worth the extra money, they'll pay for them. Otherwise, they'll opt for Windows or Linux. I'm sure the marketing folks at Apple have a handle on things.

For myself, I'm agnostic. There are things I like about my 2007 iMac, with OS X 10.4.11. There are things I like about my Dell, running Windows XP Professional. I haven't really looked at Vista yet, and am not in a hurry to upgrade.

When it comes time to replace the Dell, I'll do whatever makes sense then. Price will be only one of the factors I consider.

I'm with Rich, and I'll take it one step further: Windows destroys the value of any hardware it touches. The amount of time I've helped friends and family with their XP machines vs. their Mac machines is considerable.

I wonder if judging value by also comparing Ubuntu software would offer a new angle on the hardware we're judging. Because this article is considering the experience and maintenance of the total cost of the hardware, then its interface needs to be fairly judged as well.

I have a problem with windows, it sucks way more so then Mac, 2 years at a national magazine as webmaster and onsite tech,with 2 windows machines (Publisher and bookkeepers ) and 25 Mac workstations,2 mac servers.Of 100s of computer issues only 2 came from Macs and were from the spilling of liquid on the keyboard not GUI or OS related.
the rest were on Windows.
Time is money and a CTO should be able to see the cost of maintaining windows is 3 to 5 times the cost of Mac or Linux in the long run maybe even more. Yes IT will scream against Mac or Unix as they dont want to learn something new or maybe lose their jobs and status. At the end of the day its how many widgets get made and at what cost not what OS or hardware a single system has.

Bob, you've hit the nail on the head. People who perceive the Apple value proposition will buy Macs. I am amused by all the idiots here who call Mac users "fanboys" or "zealots" or whatever other epithets they can come up with. It is extremely disingenuous to suggest that the tens of millions of Mac users around the world have all been duped by the Apple marketing machine. This kind of over-generalization is quite inane.

I own several Windows PCs and one iMac. I use WinXP, Vista, and OS X. I am largely OS-agnostic. However, I will hand it to Apple: Mac does have a compelling value proposition...

1) Gorgeous industrial design, second to none
2) Superb build quality (cf. Dell)
3) Wonderful ease of use and productivity
4) Top-notch support
5) Better security than Vista's

And that's above and beyond the "cool" factor.

I'm with Bob, I'm agnostic. My desktop is Windows and my laptop is Mac. Regardless of whether or not I have a Mac or PC, I'm still going to go and grab the software I use-- Firefox, Skype, etc. The immediate cost is a big factor-- take the iPhone that Apple themselves spun as 'low price' and yet it was shown that -over time-, wasn't cheaper. Didn't matter to consumers apparently.

The issue with comparisons between the two are such moving targets, because subjective things like status, class, perceived experience get mixed up with things like RAM, Storage, Feature sets (wifi/bluetooth/webcam included).

I'm nearing the next purchase cycle and I'm feeling 'consumer behavior' set in. Both systems have their annoyances, both do the same thing. But I find my personal experiences with Windows vs. Mac being similar to owning both a Chevy and Mercedes. I don't have problems with either of them even though they have their own unique irritations and hidden things that pop up down the road, the benefits of each are walking the line of function and form, two very odd bedfellows indeed.

The "stunning" part is not the price disparity, but the fact that Apple's market share is rapidly increasing despite it!

There's a message there for Microsoft and PC makers: a lot of people are so sick of dealing with Windows that they will gladly pay double, if necessary, in order to have a less stressful, more productive experience. (I'm talking average end-users, here, not high-end geeks who will keep their cheapo PCs humming along no matter what)

Having said that, I also agree with the previous poster about the Chevy vs. Mercedes analogy.

Part of that extra cost on the Mac destops is for the Xeon processors that most PC desktops don't use.

After a decade of Intel/Windows PC's and laptops, I'd had enough, bought the last Powerbook G4. I've never looked back, no issues, no problems, no viruses, thousands of applications and utilities, unix inside.... even MS Office. Everything just works, HW & SW, beautifully all the time, and I'm still using the original installation of OSX 10.4 (no slowdowns, no barfing, no crashes). Since I don't use Windows anymore, I have no need for a MacBook until this laptop is stolen or gets destroyed in a tornado.

Intel/windows = Buick
PowerPC/OSX = Porsche
Intel/OSX = Ferrari

Average cost to remove spyware/viruses from a PC. yes even Vista, is over $200 for normal user. These can result in lost data, identity theft, lost time, etc. One occurance makes up the difference in cost.

I am an ISP and I see this daily!

There's a piece of this equation you left out - the elusive "Value" quality. Do you think purchasers of Apple computers are blithely unaware that they could spend half the hard dollar cost to obtain a "computer"? I'd be surprised to discover that very many people wandered in to an Apple Store and just purchased a Mac on impulse. There are qualities that influence the purchase that go beyond the simple comparison of technical specs. The Value Proposition is about precisely that: VALUE.

Macintosh purchasers - as, for instance, BMW purchasers, or Viking range purchasers, or organic vegetable purchasers - CHOOSE to pay what YOU perceive to be a premium to obtain what YOU perceive to be an inferior product. But the Macintosh purchaser's Value Proposition says, I want a computer that does what I want it to do, with the least possible amount of maintenance and hassle, that's well-designed, and constructed for practical use that (easily) doubles the life of other alternatives. I want a computer whose maker essentially dictates to peripheral and software vendors PRECISELY how things will work, so that my use and enjoyment of my purchase will be unencumbered with things like hardware incompatibilities and conflicting .DLL installations. The time I will save, the use I will enjoy, are worth the amount of money I will now spend above and beyond what I might spend were I to go down to the Kwik-E-Mart and purchase a Windows PC.

Is that for everyone? Of course not. But for almost 9% of the computer buying public, it IS worth it - and that number appears to be increasing, slowly but steadily. Nobody's suggesting you shouldn't continue to enjoy surfing the razor-thin margin game with whatever Chinese startup is tossing chips and boards together this week - for Macintosh purchasers, that's just... irrelevant. I know, it's hard to take, but they don't care about you, or Windows, or saving $500 or $1,000 or $2,000. You can toss around whatever unsubstantiated claims you want regarding Apple's longterm viability (cf. the early 1990's to remind yourself how THAT story line has played out...), but you're talking Hyundais, and Maytag, and creamed corn in a can and Macintosh purchasers... aren't.

Still hoping that microsoft will make a linux based os.

The NPD Graph is misleading.
NPD uses creative math.
You see, Apple makes two types of desktop computers.
The Mac Pro is a desktop, the iMac is a desktop - with
a buildin screen.
Here's what they did: They have counted the iMac as a normal, generic tower desktop. (without screen)
They counted the Windows pc if it was the same as the iMac.
The low end iMac is very competitivly priced, and it looks gorgeous.
It's not even really low end, because OS X scales great.

Interestingly, these comments are the same type of craziness as you see on the BMW message boards, where it's not enough for someone to take pleasure in the fact that they have a more comfortable and more exciting car to drive, they have to go into all sorts of crazy contortions in rationalizing why their car is a better financial investment than a Prius, while paying 5x the price for the same brake pads. That's what makes you a fanboy, when you insist that my any possible metric (price, performance, reliability), that Apple is better. I own a Mac and a BMW, and I know these are luxuries which I prize. I use Vista regularly at work, if I couldn't afford a Mac, it wouldn't be the end of the world, just like if I had to drive a Toyota, I'd be ok too. I'm just happy that I can afford to enjoy something a little better. Enjoy your Mac, but don't be a nut.

Q. Should You Pay Twice as Much for a Mac?
A. No - you should pay the market price for a Mac

As to whether it's worth twice as much as a cheapo Windows PC, then that's up to you.
For me it most certainly is.
Being a Mac owner does not endow me or any other Mac user with anything other than a different value equation when making a purchase - that's all the difference there is. Same goes for iPods, iPhones or whatever. The value lies in what you place on it not the tastes or lack of, of the buyer. If you place so little value by what you spend your time doing, then go cheap

The Mac's worldwide market share has "skyrocketed" all the way to 3%, so the company is clearly on the right path. (grin)

"1) Gorgeous industrial design, second to none
2) Superb build quality (cf. Dell)
3) Wonderful ease of use and productivity
4) Top-notch support
5) Better security than Vista's

And that's above and beyond the "cool" factor."

Dell had top-notch support for years. In fact, they were the industry leader in support. Become big enough, and support will go down. It is simply the biggest expense. Once you dive into the low-end market, like Apple is apparently going to do, they will either not afford the cost of tech support as it is, or they will outsource it.

Dell has excellent design quality in comparably prices machines. Sony's Vaio has a very similar look to the Mac, and in fact, Sony developed the keyboard design used on the MacBook (which I hate, BTW)

Tell us about the better security Mac offers. Apple has done one thing that has allowed for an apparently more secure, more stable OS. They have no past success. No, really, MS has had to keep compatibility with older hardware and thus reliability can suffer. Buy a new machine with Vista x64 on it--rock solid. Apple has so limited the range of hardware, of course they can tailor their OS to a handful of configurations. Of course, what that means is you can't get your pick of the best quality that is out there. You get to use what Apple thinks you should have. For some of you, that is great, for others, not so much. You pay to have fewer options.

If you buy a computer for the "coolness factor" you deserve to pay extra. I suppose you pay 1500 each for the rims on your Escalade too.

"The low end iMac is very competitivly priced, and it looks gorgeous."

People, go get some art in your homes and stop using your computer's case as a means of enhancing your decor. I mean really, put your computer in a room that no one but you is going to see it. Who cares if the case is "pretty." Gosh if you bought a Mac, you should be able to print off some really pretty pictures to hang on the walls...I suppose you could do the same with a PC...and still have money for paper, ink, and frames.

"granted the Mac Mini starts at $599, but its sales volume is negligible"

Apple might want you to beleive this, but it's not true. The Mac mini outsells the iMac most days on Amazon. To me that says, most people want a Mac for under $1000.

Oh, the car analogies are cracking me up. The hardware in a BMW is leaps and bounds higher quality then that found in a Yugo. Not the same in Mac vs. PC.

What is higher quality is the OS. Mac has definitely built a nicer experience than Microsoft has. That, of course, ignores any of the multiple Linux distros out there which eliminate the cost of the OS on the PC side.

So really, what the car analogy should be is a Yugo vs. a Yugo with leather seats and a Bose stereo.

"With a Mac I am more productive, so the price difference disappears in a few months."

I've often heard this one, and I don't much get it. This said, I have used OSX, XP, Vista, and Ubuntu in the last couple of years.

How is it that you're more productive on a Mac? Do you write documents faster? Code in Ruby faster? Calculate a range of cells in a spreadsheet faster?

"More productive" has become a fanboi comment that generally lacks metrics or analysis. But since some folks say it, it becomes a mantra.

The bottom line is buy what you think is a good investment for what you'll be doing with it. The hardware is all the same now, so the extra cost is in the OS itself.

i have one word for you "apple-dick-riders"

I fear those questioning the differences in price and features of the Windows PC vs. Mac are totally lost and should not own a computer at all...everyone should know not to try to buy RAM from the apple store (or a notebook from Target - that's where you buy bedding, toilet paper, and maybe pickup an XBOX game from time to time)

there was a pretty strong case for mac changig its market strategy a week and a half ago

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/07/28/nows-the-time-for-apple-to-strike

but this guy didn't have any charts

This is for the "power user", obviously.
I am a hardware fan, what OS I use.. is secondary.
But I know what my hardware should run, and a intel cpu can run OSX.. if you want it...

What your "power user" would do to save money.

1. Purchase Cheap dell
2. Purchase OSX
3. Download hackintosh "patches"

Install OSX on your Dell. Spend a few hours to get it working 100% (and it does take time the first time)

Now you own a computer that runs OSX just fine for 60% of the price. I've done it.. of course.. I don't run OSX on any of my PC's, games are faster in windows.

For someone who dislikes apple and the arrogrance of their users...The MacPro is a good price too. Even if you bought it to run windows only. Try to buy that hardware in that form factor for anywhere near that price... xeon processors and all with multiple pci express slots. Good luck with that.

Apple's prices are crazy. I work for a large school district. We went to market with tender for PC and MAC computers. MAC came in twice the cost of PC. We put it right to Apple execs...you need to lower your price if you want us to stay with Apple. They came down a bit more in the end but still way above PC. Schools were left to decide what they want. Many schools opted to drop MACs in favor of more PCs for the same money. MACS just aren't worth the price difference in education.

People that compare Macs to Ferraris should shampoo my crotch.

Antonio said:
If you buy a computer for the "coolness factor" you deserve to pay extra. I suppose you pay 1500 each for the rims on your Escalade too.

Well, Antonio, that's a different debate altogether. The consumer market has always been divided into a utilitarian market and a luxury market. There are people who have the money and the desire to buy nice things, and there are people who need to be more practical and frugal. Why do you pooh-pooh the former? I have money, why shouldn't I buy luxury items? Is there something wrong with that?

And why should we have this particular debate here?

Antonio said:
Apple has so limited the range of hardware, of course they can tailor their OS to a handful of configurations. Of course, what that means is you can't get your pick of the best quality that is out there. You get to use what Apple thinks you should have. For some of you, that is great, for others, not so much. You pay to have fewer options.

The PC has become a commodity product. It no longer matters what's inside of it, as long as it runs your applications well. Not only is it a commodity product, it's also a *disposable* product, so that the notion of upgrading the hardware in a few years' time is quite antiquated.

In my younger days as a geek, I drooled over the latest CPU or memory/hard drive configuration. Today, I couldn't care less. I have several PCs at home with 2.0+ GHz dual/quad core processors, 500GB hard drives, and middling graphics. That's overkill for most people. That's overkill for me, and I'm a professional software developer!

So Apple gives you few options. Who cares? Certainly not the buying public, the consumer market. Apple understands this.

Apparently, you Windows folks don't.

Hell $700? i just picked up a stack of HP's for $500 +tax of course, with 2gig ram wifi nvidia graphics a remote control 160 gigHDD's. looking around most of the retailers in my area i see comparable notebooks as low as 398 and thats almost all of them(stores). while it wont play hard core 3d games i have been able to run quit a few games on them. and yea i dont care for vista but except for a codec problem i have yet to see these crashes some people talk about and its been about three months. why the hell would i pay over $1000 for something thats not even equal in power. you can blo till your blue in the face NO OS is worth a $500+ premium!!!! screw that ill go with linux first
and to all those people who say vista is a resource hog just turn off all the graphical BS and suddenly it runs fine. MS OS's do have tuning features ya know.............

Andrew said :

MACS just aren't worth the price difference in education.

By going the PC route, your school will pay more in the long run. The money is one thing, but time is another. Do you want to spend your time fixing your machines rather than teaching? Or are you counting on your school district to fund another full-time IT to deal with your problems? Don't count on that.

I grew up with PCs, bought my first Mac in 2000. A Powermac G4 that still works today. I purchased my first mac laptop in 2005, also a G4, and I still use it every day. Yes, there are faster machines out there now, but at least with an Apple Computer I have a choice to upgrade. I haven't been forced to buy another machine because of cheap hardware and a faulty OS.

The bottom line, I save both time and money, and that's makes using my machines that much more fun as well.

I have been a Mac user since 1988 and have owned countless hardware items. I haven't had a system crash since upgrading to OSX in 2003. I have had many applications crash which were almost always Microsoft

I had to use a PC for work for awhile a few years ago, and I snickered inside at how much it cost my boss to have me deal with the constant BS.

It's all about the engineering.

Last summer I was going to switch to Mac. Went to look at MacBooks (not Pro) and was utterly shocked that the screens (you know, our main interface with the device!) were so bad. My wife was with me and agreed that the picture quality was noticeably worse than our 2 year-old Toshiba (one of those $700 ones, no less). They're still selling the same overpriced junk and my 3 year-old Toshiba still looks better.

But that wasn't the deciding factor for me. I was still willing to payup when a better model came along. No, for me it was the iPhone. Let me say that I love my iPhone and I think it was / is the best smartphone for many people, by a long shot. But it crashes, hangs, and does all those crazy things that windows does. So I realized the Mac thing was all hype--they're no better than Microsoft.

I shouldn't have needed a lesson. I had already seen them claim for years that their proprietary architecture was better, faster and that their OS was superior...only to summarily dump both and go with a PC architecture and a unix-based OS.

Besides, once I started using Vista I really have no desire to use anything else. Yes, there was a time when I thought about wiping and putting venerable XP Pro on my new Dell, but that urge has long since passed.

Buy Apple gadgets. They're great and worth the premium as long as you're cool with iTunes. But leave your heavy computing needs with Microsoft and the PC makers.

This article is extremely bias, it neglects the main differences between apple and pc.

I purchased a mac a month ago, and have litterally left my BRAND new quad core Q6600 Hp in the Dust as it screams every time i turn it on from the exposure of viruses and ive gotten mcafee, avira, adaware for it. Absolutely next to useless in the eyes of a mac.

The os is untouchable, you have widgets, dashboard, expose, absolutely no viruses, or spyware, i dont worry at all.

my quadcore Q6600 w/ nvidia 8500GT + 200GB HD (no monitor or speakers = 1000$

Macbook 2.4 in white w/ the ipod touch AND a printer all with student discount? = 1200$

ive had 3 desktops all rigged to the best memory and harddrives for 7 yrs. MAC > all.

Usually, I don't get into fanboy arguments online. I choose to enjoy what I do, and every once in a while debate the virtues with my friends. But I seldom waste time on online message boards and such - but as a person with plenty of research experience, I'm going to dissect the author's biases.

"...on sale at the local Target. One of them, a 14-inch model, the HP DV2946NR, sold for $699.99 and packed 4GB of memory and a 320GB hard drive."

And you casually mention yet forget to include in the argument that this laptop's on SALE?
I love deals. I spend a half an hour each day on deal forums. This is a steal for a laptop, one that would be snapped up by PC users. A sale that is probably specific to that store for the next week. It won't last long. These specs are typical at $1000- $1100.
Let's compare another sale - with my educational discount, I can get the Macbook that you mentioned for $950 or so; plus the free iPod, which is on sale right now. Bringing it down to $750, or even less. Still seem like much of a difference?

Oh, and was it intentional or did you just happen to forget that this HP is a 2 Ghz dual core, while the Macbook sports a 2.4? The difference in performance is MUCH more significant than the 20% up in processor speed.

"If Vista notebooks are selling for so little and packing so much, how does this compare with Mac desktops and notebooks?"

It's Vista.
I know that argument has been used time and again, but I tried Vista as a Beta release, as an RC candidate and the full released version. A year ago, I decided it was not worth it, and that I was not going to use Vista. I'm sure it's gotten a lot of bugs fixed, but I find it hard to spend three hours backing up my hard drive (which, of course, takes forever because I run XP), and a couple more partitioning and installing Vista, only to realize that it was a waste of my time, AGAIN. That it freezes, asks for my permission to copy each file when I give the command and generally acts like a spoiled brat. Because that's really what Microsoft is - a pampered brat.

"Today I contacted Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, about computer average selling prices at retail. That HP notebook is right on mark: ASP for retail Windows notebooks is $700. Mac laptops: $1,515. Yeah, right, they're more than twice as much."

Again - a previous commenter raised the point - average prices are not to be compared, because macs are generally higher performance laptop. From your statement, one might believe that the $700 average applies to powerhouses like your sale example. It's not. The average $700 laptop probably has a 1.6, MAYBE 1.8 ghz dual core, 1 GB RAM, a 120 HDD, a DVD burner. That's it. No wireless N, bluetooth, no camera, or any number of other perks. Really not fair - to Windows that is, because that laptop will start whining when it gets the slightest bit of pressure.

"But there's more: The ASP for Mac desktops is more than $1,000 greater than for Windows PCs, and Mac desktop ASPs were higher in June than they were two years ago."
As another poster brought up - comparing prices at the end of a product cycle, RIGHT before a product refresh and price cut, is ridiculous. Which it is unadvisable to buy a mac right this moment, to be sure, rather than waiting 5 weeks.

"But that "more" also means Windows Vista, which won't satisfy some shoppers."

Some?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

"That situation has dramatically changed in the last six months, particularly the last three months."

Again, the whole price and product cycle thing.

"...prices must go down and configurations bulk up."

So what you're saying is... Apple needs to update their product line to improve their market share. That they can't sell the same laptops for more than two years if they want to stay competitive.

No shit, Sherlock. I could have told you that.

I really can't rebut the desktop argument, because simply, I don't know enough about either Mac or PC desktops. I'm not going to presume to do that.

***

I've used every version of windows except for the server versions since 3.1. It's been - what, 12 years?
Next month, I'm planning on buying a MacBook. Here's why.
1. Parallels. I enjoy options. Everything I can do on XP, I can do on OSX and XP put together. Not the other way around.
2. PC laptop makers build crap. I bought my Dell Inspiron 6000 2.5 years ago. The keyboard has been replaced twice, the screen sags forward on its hinged and won't stay still, the system buzzes white noise for 5 minutes whenever I boot or come out of standby, and there are several dead pixels. Oh, and whenever I pop in a DVD, the system freezes. I have 2 gigs of ram in there, and while the processor is not that powerful, it's by no means truly archaic (single core 2 ghz). The fully functional life of a PC desktop is no more than 24 months, if you're LUCKY. Friends who have macs as old as that are only looking for a laptop if they WANT one, not because they NEED it.
3. I've reinstalled my OS 5-7 times.
4. The need to defrag/reinstall my OS every few months to get it running smoothly again.
5. BATTERY LIFE. By far the most important factor. A new lappy will probably produce 2, maybe 2.5 hours. A couple of years old, expect 1. I'm a college student, and I can't run out of juice halfway through a lecture.
6. Software updates. I will have the luxury of updating my laptop without having to buy new hardware to support it - as might have been the case with Vista, for example.

I'm sorry, I really have to get back to work. I'm sure I could have lengthened the list to 10 or 12, but I don't have the time. Perhaps some other time.

Altogether: I think Macs DO have a premium price, probably about 5-10% above exactly built PCs. However, I think that there is a very good justification; apart from aesthetics, the software perks and widened range of options are worth it. Of course, right this moment I think the premium is more along the lines of 20-30%, but that is strictly due to the product cycle. When the new Macs are out next month, run an analysis comparing an exactly specced out PC, taking into account factors like battery and portability, and you will find the prices - the MSRP, mind you - are quite competitive, maybe more so on the side of Apple.

This is why you find that market share expanding, due to users like myself. I'll probably still use Windows now and then, but since I've never had a problem porting over, it'll be when I have to.

There used to be a time when I used to consider that PC users only switched because they were computer illiterate and found Macs easier to use; while they still are easier to use, I can assure you from personal experience that that precise scenario is no longer the only case, that more and more discerning tech users are switching because they found Apple to be better value for money and a better user experience overall.

Why would Apple need to lower prices on their computers? I don't think there would be a large enough increase in buyers even if they did lower the cost by about 20%. They're doing fine as it is. Not that I don't want a price drop...i'd be all over it.

As for Windows, you'd only have to worry about viruses/spyware/etc if you go to crack/porn sites, or if you click on obviously fishy links in emails. It's not the operating system...it's how you use it.

For the record, I use Windows XP, Ubuntu, and Mac OSX computers at home.

The real tech minded people choose windows because they are cheaper AND better! They know that all the bad hype about Vista is unfounded (Vista really does work well people) and that under the hood, Apples and Windows are basically the same now. The only "user experience" that Apple users get that Windows users don't is sticker shock.

If Vista is so great, how come people are duking it out to be able to buy Microsoft's last generation OS (XP)?

The initial purchase price is only one consideration. How much time do you spend actually trying to get the computer work? How often do you have to repair it?

The PC market has always been a race to the bottom in regard to pricing. It should come as no surprise that there is stratification in the market just as there is in the auto market. Both a Porsche and a Hyundai get you from point A to point B in the same amount of time. Why is Porsche in business if people have to pay such a large premium for their products?

I really don't think looking at hardware specs is a valid measure of macs. My huge Dell PC has hardware specs that blow my mac mini clean out of the water. Yet my mac mini is significantly faster than my Dell. Go figure. The problem with the PC's is that they are infected with a virus called Windows. The latest version of the Windows virus (Vista) makes your computer run even more slowly with even more annoying "features" hence the need for PCs to have ever faster and beefier hardware to deliver the same level of performance you'd get from Windows 3.1 on a 286 several years ago. I find it amusing that you can run Windows (via Parallels) on a mac mini with better performance than you can run it on a big f'off Dell. For a long, long time I was a Windows fanboi, it was only when I was pretty much forced by colleagues to try a mac that I actually realised why people rave over them. I'm not saying macs are perfect, but compared to Windows they are vastly more pleasant and productive to use.

A "bargain PC" ceases to be a bargain once you get it home and try to use it. Get a Mac. Preserve your sanity. Live your life.

I was a loyal Windows user for 20 years and switched to a MACbook Pro in October. I would gladly pay double for another MAC and will never purchase another Windows-based computer.

The Leopard operating system is fast and stable unlike my husband's Vista laptop we purchased in June.

About half the people buying Macs are interested in the advanced features, reliability and great software integration right out of the box.

I've recommended Macs to a half dozen people who have bought them in the last year, and all of them said they wished they had switched sooner.

I could use all sorts of examples, including a friend who's HP desktop was owned by a botnet from hell but if you use both everyday, like I do, you KNOW why I do NOT let my Dell on the Internet, and use it as a single purpose machine.

I've been a Mac user and a PC user since 1988...quite simply Mac's are worth the extra because they just don't crash or break. Worry-free is the word I'm looking for. Mac's just keep working like an old HP LaserJet3 printer or a Kirby vacuum cleaner. (For those that don't know, Kirby vacuum cleaners cost about $2000 but seldom need to be repaired!) I get work done on my Mac instead of worrying about the latest patch or "this and that thing" I need to keep my Windows machine functioning. My Windows experience is starting to remind me of the early days of Linux when you were constantly tweaking your machine instead fo getting any work done. And now, just like then, if you don't keep up with all the tweaking you have to do for Windows, you run the risk of your computer being totally unusable...rebuild anyone? A computer is a tool to do work...if it's always in the shop for repair, why use it?

Your comparison at the low end fails to point out that the iMac also has some other features not listed for the Inspiron 518:
The iMac has bluetooth, 802.11 g, a double layer DVD burner and a Web cam. It also has lower energy consumption and OS X instead of Vista. That last bit is important because the maintenance cost in time or outsourcing is significantly higher for the Vista machine. OS X is easier to administer, and easier to add other devices and hardware than Vista. Additionally, you can always ad VMware ($79) or Parallels ($120) to the iMac and run Windows simultaneously with OS X if there is an application or requirement for software that doesn't exist on the Mac. You can also run Unix programs and Linux along side OS X.

There is a hidden cost with a Windows PC that no one likes to talk about or admit. When the average non-technical consumer buys a Windows PC they are not equipped to fix it. When the hard drive gets gummed up with viruses and bloatware after a few months of use what do they do? Well, they take it to Best Buy or some other mainstream store that does not have qualified technicians to solve the real problem. They tell them they have to replace the hard drive and wipe their system clean and start over. And of course the customer is out several hundred dollars in the process. Not to mention the lost data because they never backed up anything.

My Power Mac G5 has been running for 5 years without a virus, without having to re-install the OS. It has plenty of power, no need to upgrade it just to run the current wave of Microsoft CPU hogging applications. The average Windows PC user has since gone through two or more computers in that time because they simply just threw the damn thing away rather than deal with getting the hard drive clean.

I'm a graphic designer, a loyal Mac user from the get-go back in '85. But it's getting ridiculous. Macs used to be plug and play, and when my friends asked the eternal question "Mac or PC", I always said Mac for low TOC. No more. Both platforms do your basic word processing, filing, surfing, gaming, music, movies etc. for the average user. But the TOC for Macs has just exploded for us professionals. I just finished a month-long (!) process of buying a Mac Pro Tower, and getting fonts to behave, printing to pdf and printer, accepting files from clients, and a host of other work-flow problems (a given ever since OS X came in), my checkbook is $7000 lighter, thanks to those integration problems needing a professional consultant. IMHO Apple has forgotten the industry that brung 'em to the dance. The graphics industry is ripe for a workstation that just works - Atari anyone? I own a number of both PCs and Macs, and I yearn for the days of System 7, but right now I enjoy my Vista machine as much as my Mac.

Let's all face the truth, hardware-wise there is little difference except for standard Bluetooth and perhaps a camera between MAC and PC laptops. That said, in equivalently built hardware (read as quality of construction) the price difference is for an OS. Mac OS doesn't run as many different titles as Win OS's. Mac OS is largely idiot proof when compared to Win OS's. MAC's don't have the number of malware issues (likely because the MAC market is so small compared to PC that it's not worth hacking to most hackers)than PC.

Thus, MAC has a greater stability for those who have neither the ability nor the desire to take the time or make the effort to compute safely and without playing with settings in the OS they don't understand.

I have both MAC and Win machines and use the Win machines almost exclusively because of the power I was able to afford to build into them (read memory, graphics ability, and cpu cycles) to work on the various engineering projects I consult on. The MAC's only get fired up in the rare occasions when a client has an application using MAC, or I receive a file that needs to be run on MAC.

It's not a bias, nor a zealot-like worship of a platform; it is simply the same good business sense that has made the PC the number one computing platform in industry world-wide.

Mel S. Hutson :
This article is also deficient because it does not analyze the effect of resale. You can buy a iMac for $1400 and sell it for $700 three years later. Buy a PC for $700 and it's worth maybe $200 three years later.
---------------------
I wonder what Mr. Hutson's point was. Was it that if you buy an iMac you can lose $700 versus $500 for a Windows PC?

Design matters. Always did, always will.

I recognize Mac's value and robustness, but if it weren't for the prevalence of Windows PC's, we IT guys wouldn't have a job!

Umm, DUH, can you say monopoly? Apple has, thanks to ridiculous intellectual property laws, a strangelehold on it's installed base. If they decoupled the software from the hardware, people would by the Mac OS in droves to escape Windows bugs and Linux complexity, because the Mac OS is just better for consumers to use. But why sacrifice high margin hardware sales by doing that? Sooo, they keep the hardware and software inextricably bound, margins are high, executive perks are maintained, and only the poor schlep who is paying the freight for this, the end user, suffers.

Can't blame Apple for broken IP law.

I support Mac and PC. We have had PCs get infected despite best corporate efforts. It is easier to just blow them away and reload than to try to fix the problem. Yet corporate sends out warnings that the Mac OS is not secure because of discovered weaknesses. It is like spotting the spec in someone elses eye and not noticing the log in your own. Our corporate IT staff are very Windows-centric and it shows in their every move.

In general, both platforms are stable, but there is a lot of behind-the-scenes corporate support that goes on to make the Windows stable. There are several people employed specifically for Windows support, and no one specifically for Mac support. It was our corporate decision to stick with Windows XP and not to use Vista. All of our PCs are employed with XP. We have quite a few Intel Macs running Windows XP in the Parallels environment. We have found this to be as fast and stable as running Windows on a dedicated PC.

I don't trust Microsoft. Office 2007 and 2008 utilize new file formats that really were not needed other than to encourage (force) you to upgrade. The Mac version of Office, 2008, no longer supports Macros. Coincidence? More like malice aforethought. Now the corporate rumblings are directed toward the Mac: Why doesn't Office on the Mac work as well as Windows, when the fault is clearly in Microsoft's decision to drop Macro capability from the Mac Office product. I think Microsoft needs another good class-action suit.

Bottom line: Windows PCs would be better off without Microsoft. Since that is not possible, I prefer the Mac and still loathe the bullying tactics from Microsoft.

One thing that needs to be taken into consideration when considering price is the useful life of the systems.

A three year-old XP system tends to be a dog from a hardware perspective and is bloated by hundreds of software patches (not to mention the registry, which typically becomes a spaghetti mess after several years of continuous use). I expect Vista to be worse than XP in this regard over time. The typical answer with Windows is to reload the OS, reload the apps and repatch and then it might buy some additional time. Feature creep in the software programs over time also tends to bog the performance of the system down. The cheap, commodity hardware also can start to fail at about the three year mark (fans, power supplies mostly).

On the other hand, there are a lot of Mac systems that are well over three years old that are still in service and being used daily. They certainly aren't as fast as the newer models, but for commonly used applications (web browsing, email and office apps) the still work fine. The hardware specified on a Mac system tends to be a bit more robust and intentionally designed (rather than put together from the cheapest components available that day) so it also tends to hold up longer.

Mac users tend to hang on to their systems for a much longer period of time before doing a technology refresh, so the extra cost is amortized over a longer time for most of them. Macs tend to become more of a personal tool, and Mac users become quite attached to their systems which is *not* the case for most Windows users.

And for the most part OS/X just works. That is worth the extra cost of admission for most Mac users.

I'm a professional system admin with over 25 years experience. I have significant personal experience that Macs take *MUCH* less systems admin time, which also is worth some up-front $$ amortized over time.

Apple's prices have always closely matched Dell's for the same hardware. But this article like most, deliberately chooses an inferior spec Dell and pretends it's the same. Then the Windows idiots come and kick the tyres, and the innocent Mac owners say it's more than just the spec. Darned right it is, but it's the spec the article is lying about.

The Mac is beautiful all-in-one industrial design, which requires laptop motherboard components. versus Dell's basic big box and separate monitor. Dell does make an all-in-one, but the comparison ignores it. Apple in fact targets the 20 inch iMac at education. Try comparing a basic educational 20 inch iMac. Or try comparing a 24 inch iMac with an equally specced Dell all-in-one.

For this bogus comparison:

The Mac comes with full Mac OS X. The full version of Vista is Ultimate, not Home, and it's $120 extra from Dell.

The Mac comes with 20 inch screen and webcam. The Dell price was for 19 inch no webcam. $90 extra for Dell to match the screen.

The Mac has digital video out and can drive two screens; the Dell appears to have a single VGA analogue connector.

The Dell has onboard graphics; the Mac has separate graphics. $60 extra

The Mac has digital sound in and out. Not sure how much extra for that on the Dell, but it's probably the $100 sound option. (Dell don't want me to understand the spec I'm buying).

The Mac comes with 802.11n. $40 extra from Dell.

Does the Apple keyboard and mouse match the Dell basic or the Dell premium ($35 extra)? I don't know.

The Dell comes without speakers. $20 extra.

The Mac comes with iLife. Nearest you'll get from Dell is Adobe Elements bundle $99 extra.

The Dell comes with horrible pre-installed nag/crapware that Dell probably gets paid another $100 for, and you'll spend an afternoon clearing it out if you've got the skills; otherwise you'll just live with it, like cockroaches.

Suddenly this revolting Dell DIY box of parts is considerably more expensive than the iMac whose spec it matches.

Anyone with a brain chooses a Mac and doesn't even visit the Dell site to be bullied and misled.

All in all I think the wrong Dell was use to compare.

Dell XPS ONE:
20 inch widescreen display
Intel� Core�2 Duo E6550
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2400 Video Card
320GB Serial ATA
Internal PCI 802.11 a/b/g/n wireless network card included
Internal Bluetooth 2.0 Included
Hybrid Analog/Digital TV Tuner with Remote Control
8X Slot load CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW)
Integrated Audio - 2.0 Speakers

Starting Price $1,739
Instant Savings $300
Subtotal $1,439

Apple
20-inch: 2.4GHz
8x double-layer SuperDrive
2GB Dual Channel DDR2
ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
320GB Serial ATA
802.11 a/b/g/n wireless
Bluetooth 2.0 Included
Integrated Audio
Can run XP, Vista, OS X

Subtotal (normal pricing)$1,349
Student, Educator, and professional discount
$1,284
Normal pricing with XP or vista from Best Buy
$1,549

IMHO
"Should You Pay Twice as Much for a Mac?"
I don't see how you can if you compare apples to apples! (sorry had to do it)

Please let me know if i missed something. Forget the OS WAR and just look at the specs from Apple and Dell for the same thing.

Pricing from Dell.com and Apple.com

That just about sums it up for me.

I run the IT dept for a modest school system. Over 1410 systems (mostly Apple).
We've gone the gamut from PC- Mac - PC -Mac - and now are headed back to PC (only because somebody at the top has a 'hate' thing for Apple).
It's certainly not about price. Apple's quote (spec-spec) was lower than Dells and they said they'd be happy to revise the original quote (not typical Apple behavior).

I've worked with everything from Win98-Vista, Apple OS 7-Leopard.

All do the job at hand, only Apple makes it much easier without nearly as much hassle and time.

Considering what you get with an off the shelf PC - Can you do email without buying an Office package or adding a POP program (other than web based?) I've never seen an onboard dictionary on a standard issue win machine.
Want to view a pdf file or create one on PC? Gotta download Acrobat in some form or another. Mac - on board pdf viewer that opens almost anything.
Want to build a pdf binder? Mac - open a pdf with Preview and drag/drop any pdf into it. Arrange the pages with a simple click and drag. Going to need Adobe prof to do that on the PC as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).
Need to make that pdf? No extra software needed - just print from any application and save as a PDF file.

I could go on and on but: my point is that the Apple OS is far beyond Win (including Vista) and the user experience is much nicer and far easier for the average computer user.

Don't get me started on licensing. Microsoft is a pain to work with and that's where the cost climbs rapidly.

We've had to add a WSUS server to ease the 'update burden' across the networks due to the never ending parade of Window updates and patches. Apple has it's share too, but it pales by comparison.

Viruses? Give it time - Apple will not be immune, but for the present . . life is good.

You make a choice - you live with it. I'll stick with my 8 yr old Mac that's running 10.5.4 (Leopard).

I prefer to be the 'MayTag' computer repair guy.

BTW - my IT dept has a staff of 2 right now but I'm thinking we may need to add personnel to help take care of the increasing PC load.

ps: Did I mention OSX 10.5 still works with 7 and 8 year old apps (Adobe Illustrator/Go Live/2001 version).

I have found that when you take the low end desktops or laptops and then add on the "extras" that come with the MAC desktop or laptop, the prices then become very close - within about $200 of each other for the most part. It is still true that the PC has hardware that outperforms the hardware on the MAC - but guess what - the MAC OS outperforms Windows XP and Windows Vista by a HUGE margin (especially VISTA). My EMULATED Windows XP under VMWare on my MacBookPro blows away how fast Windows XP runs on my PC only laptop (its a VMWARE copy of my PC laptop's hard drive). THAT is how big the margin is - it is PATHETIC to even compare any Windows OS to the MAC OS with results like that.

So while we may complain about the high prices of MACs versus PCs, Apple must be doing something right to have results like that.

You buy your Windows stuff and I'll buy my Mac stuff. Three diehard Windows fans, friends of mine, have given up on Windows and viruses and re-boots and on and on. They have switched to Macs and say they are amazed at how easy it was to switch and are finally happy to just use their machines rather than fix things and waste time. They did say that they paid a bit more but it was worth it in the first month to be done with the aggravation of the past.

It comes down to this: I have Macs and Windows boxes (mostly Dells). The majority of my disgruntled and angry users are PC users; their machines crash, freeze, and generate odd error messages. They are the mainstay of our support problems. We have about 120 in the building. We have 50 Macs of varying ages; I can count on one hand the number of support calls in the last month.

Also, if I have an Intel based Mac, I can have windows for a few bucks more and it runs well. If I buy a PC, I can't run OSX without hacks. This expands my usefulness.

The software on a Mac is useful out of the box. The software on most PCs is teaseware, most of which I need to un-install.

If you buy based on the cost of hardware, the comparison is valid: windows boxes are cheaper. If you buy based on the price of experience, Macs win hands down.

Final point: I get requests from people daily for recommendations for personal purchases. I listen to their needs and make suggestions, sometimes, when price is paramount, for a Windows machine. I have NEVER had someone who purchased a Mac at my recommendation come back with regret, even with the price. I have had people who purchased a Windows machine on price come back to me and say "I wish I'd bought a Mac".

There is a reason why car manufacturers sell a Lexus as well as a Sentra. Choose the price and value which satisfies you.

Get a PC if you:
- want to buy a new one or upgrade your machine within 2 years;
- love to test the latest security exploits;
- love spending time fixing and troubleshooting;
- allot at least a day to maintain your system every month;
- want to spend more money on harware/memory upgrades in the long run because of software/security updates (hardware becomes slower as the system gets fatter with software/security fixes and updates)...

Get a Mac if you:
- intend to use it for at least 5 years or for as long as it works;
- want to get more done in less time and enjoy the other aspects of life, such as family;
- don't care about maintenance because it just works;
- spend less on hardware upgrades and software updates because again, it still works... (my 15" Powerbook G4 runs on Leopard.. can a 5-year old PC run Vista? much more a 5-year old laptop?)...

Peace!

If you only talk price, you are ignoring the reality of the abysmally bad experience that Windows presents the user compared with that of Mac OS X. You must also include the value of the included capabilities that come as part of the OS X experience compared with the built-in abilities of Windows. I am constantly amazed with the wealth of capability that I take for granted on the Mac that must be separately purchased by my colleagues who use Windows.

Finally, there is the security issue: Macs have a great record while everyone knows that to go "bare" on a Windows machine is to court disaster every day.

Oh, and when was the last time I booted my Mac? At least a week ago.

Having a mac is a preference, nothing more. Whoever made the $1 to $100 hooker reference is clearly drunk and lobotomized.

I've run dozens of flavors of *nix, Macs, PC's (with windows, dos, OS/2), and Amiga. When you get down to it at the end of the day, they're all very similar. An OS is an OS, it just allows you to work in an environment you're comfortable. Unless you're a system admin, you don't do your work in an OS, you do it in an application. When either group of users is incessantly proselytizing their religion, they inadvertently shout this one phrase at the top of their lungs: "I'M TRYING REALLY HARD TO JUSTIFY MY PURCHASE!"

I've used both Vista and Mac OS X. Both are pretty nice. Vista is now (as opposed to at release) FAR better than XP, and OS X is pretty slick. I can work efficiently in each, and I've had no problems with viruses or spyware on the vista box. There's no inherent advantage to having a pc or a mac... although it looks like buying a mac comes with a free superiority complex judging by the comments here.

Should you pay TWICE AS MUCH for a BMW or MERCEDES BENZ when you can pay less than HALF for a Hyundai ????? Actually a Yugo would be a better comparison...

Some Hyundai models have the same wheels, similar V6 engine, nice radio, roomsize and everything else that a BMW has, RIGHT?

Should you pay twice as much for anything else?? Food in a restaurant or Burger King? Name brand jeans or the Walmart brand? Bottle water or water from the faucet? Craftsman tools or "el cheapo" tools? Gibson Guitars? Real Coke or imitation? Starbucks coffee or instant coffee?

And ... have you checked resale values for Mac Laptops on eBay? Ahh... they retain their value pretty good ... huh? Windows PCs are worthless after a couple of years.

What does HP and Dell do? They DONT invent anything. They DONT innovate. They just keep changing the faceplate of the PC (plastic) so that you think the PC is better inside ... Puff !

Apple is the total opposite. The outside of the computer changes very little, if at all in years... still they are the best looking PCs there are (anybody using PCs in Movies?). The innovation is real ... not a fake face-wash that these other vendors do.

So what do we do?
WE CONTRIBUTE WITH THE COMPANY THAT IS INNOVATING !!!

DON'T FEED THE BASTARDS that are giving us bad products !!
If DELL and HP want our money ... THEY SHOULD DO BETTER !!!!

A Mac is worth the money. They may cost more but the resale value is much higher as well. If you factor in the cost of the software you don't need with the Mac....like anti-virus, anti-adware, registry repair utilities and the like then the prices are getting closer. Don't forget to add in the cost of tech support and repair for the PC as well. One of my computers, an eMac from 2001, is still working fine and is used every day for a good 16 plus hours. I also picked up a refurbed MacBook for less than 800 dollars that looked like a new computer and Apple does have cheaper deals. With my two Macs and 3 iPods, including the iPod Touch, I rarely use my 3 PC's. Two PC's run Windows and One runs Linux. I spend more time keeping my PC's running than I do keeping my Macs running. Don't tell Bill G. but I am a MCSE!

"... Wilcox writes, "If Apple is going to continue its market share gains, or simply maintain that 8.5 percent U.S. share, prices must go down and configurations bulk up. The math is simply undeniable."

No, Joe. What's undeniable is that Macintosh, at current pricing, is already taking market share from Windows. Therefore, your argument is illogical."

I agree that if you compare like for like not ignoring the small details you will find that pricing is much more similar than what this article demonstrates. Yes Apple charges a premium, mainly because it can. I used to have an issue with this until I actually bit the bullet and purchased a MacBook Pro. Its addictive I'm going to purchase a iMac next not really for the power but because I like the looks, quality of hardware, small package, and OSX.

I am a software engineer so I consider my self a power user and I find OSX delightful even over XP. Its fast, simple, deep, and flashy all at the same time. I do wish that there was an affordable Mac Pro type offering but I'm likely to be satisfied by the iMac for now. I do think Apple could lower the price of their MacBook line or create a lower end MacBook. I think that would help them solidify their place long term as a strong competitor in the marketplace. Honestly I think they can keep their pricing on the iMac where it is because most will pay for the form factor.

Some other things that I can say about the MacBook Pro I have....it holds up very well. I've had laptops before IBM's Dells...etc and they wear out much quicker than my MacBook...not to mention OSX is so freaking solid.

THe whole Apple offering is great for those with the me.com offering, iLife suite...etc. I do wish there were a OSX based financial software like MS Money...but VMWare helps.

Anyways just rambling at this point. Good article if not a bit misleading. I do think Apple is here to stay as long as they continue to grow and not get stuck in a rut like they did pre-intel days. Grow with your market, offer new products, fill niche's, and adapt to the market...of yea adapt to the market. :)

I think it's a bit of intellectual dishonesty, Joe, to keep your argument of comparing Apples & PCs (oranges) alive and intact by stating that one shouldn't compare apples & oranges.

You can't have both.

Are your ASPs based on an average of all models offered, or by an average based on gross sales of each model?

You state that the mini's sales are negligible, but why not factor the sales price into computing an ASP for Apple machines?

At the end of the day, prices are set on what the market will bear. Obviously Apple's twice-the-industry sales increases indicate--at least for the meantime--that Mac prices are quite right.

price comparisons of Macs and other PC's are about the same. I dare you. Go to Dell and configure a system with everything the Mac has by default (built in wireless, processors, web cam, etc., etc) and you'll see that many times, a similarly configured non-Apple system can sometimes cost more. Throw in your antivirus software etc., and that gap widens further. It's odd, but a fully equipped Mac is actually the most cost effective system you can buy these days, and that's not even considering total cost of ownership, which would widen that gap even still further. Dell makes an all in one like the iMac with all the bells and whistles, and it's price is about the same. These figures are so skewed as to be worthless. Don't take my word for it-by all means, go and try it for yourself.

If what one is truly after is a just a stripped down machine for email and typing, then you probably don't want/need a Mac to begin with, and I doubt that's a part of the market Apple is concerned with.

Pathetic. Ignorant. Arrogant.
How can a writer get it SO WRONG.
If Joe Wilcox wants to play on a level playing field why doesn't he select two appropriate players. Dell's XPS One is the correct one to make such comparisons with - and it starts at $1299. For comparison shoppers that's $100 MORE than Apple's iMac. Do the math (and your homework), Joe and you'll find Apple Macs often cost less than "comparable" PCs.
Besides, it's an insult to the intelligent computer buyer to compare a Dell's cheap plastic body to an iMac's elegant and oh-so-functional design.
Joe Wilcox comes across as a hack more at home scribbling fantasy fiction when he pontificates unctuously about market share gains, et al:
"If Apple is going to continue its market share gains, or simply maintain that 8.5 percent U.S. share, prices must go down and configurations bulk up. The math is simply undeniable."
Joe, get it right for gawdsake - Macintosh, at current pricing, is already taking market share from Windows. Therefore, your argument is illogical.
Jeesh.

For me it is a no-brainer, there is no way the Mac is worth twice the cost of a PC. In fact, for me, you'd have to pay me to use a Mac. However, I also recognize that there are people who are more interested in brand than value and the connection to a brand actually carries value in and of itself and I respect that.

As for me, I can't get beyond a mouse with one button on it plus I just enjoy windows over the Mac OS. I'm a web developer and we do have a mac here at work for testing but nobody ever uses it.

Well, I've been with Mac since Performa and have various laptop and desk models. There's no question they're much more easily usable, and yes, I work with PCs too. So the premium was always worth it.

The Big Turnoff came with my iMac 5.1 desk machine. I'd been so lulled into the Apple mentality that I neglected to check whether they'd included a WORD PROCESSOR! It didn't even have stone-age MacWrite. It came only with "trial" versions of Microsoft and iWorks software. I had all these old Claris files, etc. Incredibly, after paying well over $1,000, Apple wanted me to ship them another $70 for a WP! Fortunately, I had a license to legally use Microsoft Office on all my family machines. Each time I open a .cwk file, I'm one more step to being fully .doc. And I probably won't be going back. Why work to be less compatible with the marketplace??

That said, the latest Apple "cover-flow" system will blow the socks off anybody who hasn't seen it. Just as you can browse through album covers on an iPod, you can browse through documents, movies, etc., even leaf through those documents and video�without opening them. Hard to imagine how they could make it more intuitive than that.

@Antonio
"Dell had top-notch support for years. In fact, they were the industry leader in support. Become big enough, and support will go down. It is simply the biggest expense."

And how did Dell get big? By eschewing their business plan and going after the low end market with cheap low margin commodity boxes.

Dell built a reputation for "top notch support" when they primarily sold higher spec'd machines and geared them towards corporate customers. It was easy to maintain good customer support, when most of their PCs were selling for $2,000+. Once they began competing strictly on price, then the India call center outsourcing and other cost cutting (which also impacted product quality) began.

@Antonio
"Once you dive into the low-end market, like Apple is apparently going to do, they will either not afford the cost of tech support as it is, or they will outsource it."

Where's your evidence that Apple's going to "dive into the low-end market"? Apple has NEVER tried to compete as a low-end price leader. Right now, Apple is tremendously profitable (cash reserve is approaching the same size as MS'), with growing market share and the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry. What incentive does Apple have to dive into the cutthroat commodity PC market, and let their stock and brand equity take a steep nose dive like Dell did?

@Antonio
"Tell us about the better security Mac offers. Apple has done one thing that has allowed for an apparently more secure, more stable OS. They have no past success. No, really, MS has had to keep compatibility with older hardware and thus reliability can suffer."

Yet, for all of MS' vaunted "compatibility with older hardware" Vista cannot even run on most PCs made as recently as two years ago. OS X Leopard will run on Macs dating back to 2003, while OS X Tiger can run on Macs going all the way back to the slot-loading iMacs from 1999.

@Antonio
"Buy a new machine with Vista x64 on it--rock solid."

Yup, solid until you start loading applications and connecting devices to it, many of which remain incompatible with Vista x64. What were you saying about backwards compatibility?

This is about as disingenuous an article as I've seen in a long time. As many others have pointed out, the composition of Apple's Mac sales are quite different from the overall PC market. They don't make a midrange tower model, and they don't make any low end commodity PCs (aside from maybe the Mini, which is a very different animal from an entry level PC box) either.

My whole reason for buying a Mac is very simple -- I use Windows PCs at work! And for me, the choice as to which computer I'd rather use is quite apparent given that exposure.

It's interesting that it's a sales-volume-weighted metric that's being discussed here. The fact that it's a low-volume sale item implies that the Mac Mini somehow doesn't count.

The thing is, some people appear to be taking this as a discussion of what Apple offers, when the truth is that they offer a great range of products. The weighted average means not that Apple does not offer value, but rather that Apple customers are willing to pay more to get higher-value systems.

My understanding is that many Macs these days, when compared individually to their Windows counterparts are quite similarly priced. So the fact that people want to buy an iMac that includes a screen and keyboard instead of a Mini that doesn't really reflects consumer choice rather than corporate hubris.

What I think is most interesting about this is that Apple *did* used to avoid the bottom of the market, and they held off on releasing the Mini for many years. If this article is correct, then maybe they were right in doing so. Not only is it low margin, but it's low volume, too. Probably the only real value Apple's gotten out of that is that they can probably re-use a lot of their design work in the AppleTV, although that's a low-volume, low margin device as well...

@Brad
"For me it is a no-brainer, there is no way the Mac is worth twice the cost of a PC. In fact, for me, you'd have to pay me to use a Mac. However, I also recognize that there are people who are more interested in brand than value and the connection to a brand actually carries value in and of itself and I respect that."

Oh please, spare the faux "respect." How often do you actually talk to people who own Macs? After many years of using only Windows PCs, I did not buy a Mac because I was more interested in "brand than value." I went with the Mac because I found that it gave me greater use value than the Windows PCs I'd been using. Has nothing to do with devotion to a brand, has everything to do with finding the computer that best fits my needs.

@Brad
"As for me, I can't get beyond a mouse with one button on it plus I just enjoy windows over the Mac OS. I'm a web developer and we do have a mac here at work for testing but nobody ever uses it."

Obviously nobody ever uses it. Otherwise, you'd know that Macs have come with a multibutton mouse since 2005 (don't let appearances deceive you, the Apple Mighty Mouse is actually the equivalent of a four-button mouse), and had supported aftermarket multibutton mice and right-click apps for years before that.

@Ben
"What I think is most interesting about this is that Apple *did* used to avoid the bottom of the market, and they held off on releasing the Mini for many years. If this article is correct, then maybe they were right in doing so. Not only is it low margin, but it's low volume, too. Probably the only real value Apple's gotten out of that is that they can probably re-use a lot of their design work in the AppleTV, although that's a low-volume, low margin device as well..."

The Mini is very different from other desktop computers by virtue of its small size and its limited internal expansion options. Most of its components are built for notebooks. But, it has become a popular option for media server applications, since it can easily fit into a home entertainment system.

Every single Mac ships with Text Edit, a fully capable rich text word processor that is MS Word compatible.

Actually, the Mac has supported multi button mice and contextual menus all the way back to the late 'nineties. The notion of a real graphic designer using Windows over the Mac is preposterous. Did Microsoft & Dell send out a bunch of checks this morning?

Sophistry: Specious but fallacious reasoning.

Apple's market share is not THAT small. Dell sells four computers for every Mac sold. Only FOUR. Not four hundred, or four thousand or four million. FOUR!

Apple is the #3 or #4 computer manufacturer (too close to call 3 & 4). So maybe Dell sells more computers than Apple, but the numbers speak for themselves. You can make any set of numbers look good or bad depending on how you couch them.

It's absolute bunk that Macs cost twice as much, and the bogus claim that he "used" to defend Apple's prices must be bunk. Why? Because the author claims there's been a massive increase in the price differential between Macs and PCs.

Yeah, and BMWs didn't used to cost more than Hondas. Honda sells way more cars than BMW! And yet this author would make us think the computer equivalent of comparing a BMW 1 series to a Honda Fit. It's meaningless. And in fact, it's dishonest.

You want a powerful workstation? Mac Pros cost less than comparably equipped Dells.

Oh, and the claim that Mac Mini sales are negligible is bogus. How do I know? Because Apple does not break down sales numbers. So the author is making things up out of whole cloth.

I'll tell you what I'd buy. Even if it cost twice as much as a Dell, HP or Lenovo. A Mac. And I'm a cheapskate. I know a good value when I see it.

For me it is a no-brainer, there is no way the Mac is worth twice the cost of a PC. In fact, for me, you'd have to pay me to use a Mac. However, I also recognize that there are people who are more interested in brand than value and the connection to a brand actually carries value in and of itself and I respect that. As for me, I can't get beyond a mouse with one button on it plus I just enjoy windows over the Mac OS. I'm a web developer and we do have a mac here at work for testing but nobody ever uses it.

Wow...a web designer and you won't even test on a Mac? That says more about you than you intended, probably. It's like you don't value the user experience in your own product(s)!

As for a one-button mouse, when the hell are people going to stop with that? You *have* a 4-button mouse when you buy a mac. The OS *ITSELF* is designed to work quite well with a one-button mouse....UNLIKE MS WINDOWS.

Why would you assume the two OS's are alike? Then again, you assume that the only value in a computer is price-perf. Why? If you drive anything besides a Yugo, you have no right to make that the holy grail of any purchases.

I'd never hire someone like you, tucked down in a sort of siege mentality wishing that tim wouldn't move forward.

Yikes.

There is a major flaw in the comparison of desktop PCs and Macs.

A $700 PC does not come with a 20-24 inch TFT monitor and is in no way an "apples to apples" comparison of what Apple is providing.

The starting price for both a Dell and HP All-in-one PC (iMac equivilents) is $1299, which means a PC similar to an iMac is at least $499 above $700.

Good headline grabber,.. but please choose similar products, and provide details of what you are comparing, before making such a claim.

I'd love to try a Mac but the price has always been a turn-off. As someone who's looking for an alternative to Windows, I'd wait for either a cheaper Mac or the rumored Apple subnotebook which is supposed to be priced much lower than usual, or a cheap notebook that runs Linux. I'm just sick of MS, Windows, IE, and everything they represent. I want some real choices in the PC market. After all, OS isn't what it used to be. The Internet is the new platform and I couldn't care less if my OS has ten thousand bells & whistles most of which I never use. As long as the OS is reliable, secure, intuitive, and hassle-free, I don't care whether it's Windows, OS X, or Linux.

Outside of the Anglo-Saxon countries (i.e. the US, UK, Australia, NZ, Ireland [yes, I know that ethnically Ireland isn't Anglo-Saxon, having a great deal of Celtic blood myself]), Apple's market share is practically nil.

Thus if you include the rest of the planet, Apple's market share is approx 0.5%. It is simply NOT a viable platform on a global basis--or even in the AS world.

And in the US it is essentially an over priced toy for fanboys/girls.

It will not be long before Apple is essentially a consumer products company making toys such as the iPod and tools such as the iPhone. The amount of money spent to keep up OSX development simply isn't sustainable on a long term basis if Apple adheres to its present marketing strategy. (But why should Jobs really care? The vast majority of his wealth is in disney stock, some $5B; he is essentially a movie mogul now, not just Bill Gates' ever receding shadow.)

Don't get me wrong I have no animus against the Mac. I was using it in 1985 (no hdd, 9in bw integrated monitor!) to do the high school newspaper on. Even then Mac was priced too high. My mother wouldn't buy me one for that reason.

And, could I afford it, I'd have a Mac as well as my 3 PCs.

The shame of it is, Apple COULD and SHOULD be a major player. If only Jobs would license the OS to third party hardware makers (and he could certainly ensure quality standards are maintained), then the Mac could become a serious player in the pc (as opposed to PC) market.

And why shouldn't a version of OSX be released that would smoothly and easily operate on the major PC hardware platforms? What could chap the MSFT team's hides more?

But Apple's team prefers short term profits to long term viability as a computer company. The loss is everyone's.

And that would benefit EVERYONE. Especially PC users. Everyone using Vista knows it wasn't ready for prime time when released (tho' SP1 seems to be making a difference).

The reason GM lost its 50% market share was arrogance: GM management thought they could put out the crappiest vehicles and people would buy them simply out of habit or loyalty. Unfortunately for GM, there were competitors willing and able to exploit GM's quality debacle. (GM's biggest problem now is its legacy pension and medical insurance costs, but that's a different blog.)

Microsoft doesn't have that problem. Until it does, there's no reason for them to spend the millions to make their OSes the best they can be.

If Apple had 15% or 25% (the latter is roughly the share that Pepsi has of the soft drink market), then Microsoft would have no choice but to build a better OS. Just as Toyota and Nissan forced the US Big Three to dramatically improve quality over the last 30 yrs.

And that, my friends, would benefit everyone. Including Apple shareholders.

I don't think that anyone has ever said that Apple's products are inexpensive, but let's take a look at the comparison to make sure it's even valid.

The Apple is an all-in-one machine with dedicated graphics, a substantially smaller footprint despite having a larger screen and features such as a built in web-cam to go with the integrated speakers and microphone. It can connect wireless to your LAN and it supports BT right out of the box.

The Dell lacks those features, so I went over to their site to see if I could price them up...

Before rebate of a machine with a core 2 duo (not quad) CPU running Windows Vista Ultimate (in an attempt to get something to match iLife), 2 GB of RAM, comparable networking capabilities, etc...you end up with $939. That's as close to (forgive the pun) Apples-to-Apples as this thing is going to get...but why not look at Dell's XPS-One, their all-in-one?

It starts at $1299 with a very limited warranty and integrated video...You know what, let's not even go there because this system is horribly overpriced.

Could I find a cheaper all-in-one than an Apple? I'm sure I could, but would the premium of going with an Apple be worth it to some? Sure...that's why they're in business.

I'd love it if Apple did start building desktops other than the Mac Pro simply because I think that their current designs are all (intentionally) quite limited in various ways, but especially when it comes to upgrades. A regular old tower would be just what the doctor ordered if you ask me. Sure it'd probably still be higher priced than the Dells & HPs of the world, but I think it might get most to at least take a fresh look at Apple.

Some have touched on this in their posts already.

Non-geeks buy Mac because Apple has done a very good job at showing the problems of it's chief competitor while lifting it's own strengths over the decades (1984).

The main reason I'm buying one(not full price, on clearance, at least 15% off) is for OS X!!!!

Vista is a disappointment for me and not worth the headaches even if I did build a brand new PC. I'm very much impressed with OS X and I go into Apple Stores just to test drive it as often as I can. Sure I can get Ubuntu for free but OS X's benefits shine very bright for me. I can play with a Linux distro on my own but for my family, it's time for a Mac.

I don't compare HW specs because that's not what impresses me about Mac. PC HW is far and above more powerful for the same price points. But the software gets out of the way and lets me do what I need to do. If I want to tinker, I'll build a PC for tinkering, when I need to get something done, the software should help me do that and not always remind me that it needs tending to for some security hole or that my device drivers need to be updated every 3 months.

I've been in I.T. for over 15yrs from helpdesk to Server Admin and now Storage Admin. And I've now had my fill of supporting my own system along with systems at work. As someone else above posted. If that extra $700 cuts my time to 1/5th that of supporting a PC, it's worth every penny.

Apple's point, it's not about the hardware, it's about the experience.

Darn typos....

Don't sweat it, James. Those are interesting points; I love hearing from folks with actual real world experience. I don't think there's anything wrong with the the idea one can purchase a cheaper machine than a Mac, but the manner in which this phony comparison has been presented is in poor taste. Thank goodness in this internet age it's easy to debunk. Great to see so many people adding their two cents. It's pretty clear: the Mac is an affordable and viable choice for a lot more people than ever before.

In my opinion, it's really how much money do you have to spend?...If you have a budget of $1,000 dollars to spend on a laptop or desktop, then you buy what you can afford. If you have more money than that, then you have other options. Or am I wrong, anyone?

Then why according to JD Power is Apple's customer satisfaction roughly double the satisfaction percentage of Dell owners?

Like many others, and despite (being sometimes forced) to use PCs, I stay with Mac because I feel (much) more satisfied in using it for my personal and professional use. It is much less time, trouble, repair and consultant costs, and always works when I need it.

I bought the very first version of Windows (3.0 hmm?) It wasn't quite ready for prime time but I could see something good coming. About the time I got my next computer (Windows 95) I also got my first IT job managing a small Novell Network with about a dozen Win95 workstations. The OS really worked pretty well and it was only because the hardware was worthless that we ended up replacing them with newer Win98 boxes.

Big mistake. Win98 was a constant nightmare. The only thing worse was the two WinME laptops I made the mistake of ordering. No small business at that time would have considered a non Microsoft OS at that time, but I was starting to check out Linux.

Windows 2K was a breath of fresh air. It solved 90% of my support issues right out of the box. XP wasn't so bad either but the company president just about demanded a switch to Linux after Microsoft blackmailed us into replacing a perfectly good Office 97 for $250 a pop.

Still, I didn't have any big issue with Windows. Then I got a new job at an all Mac shop. At first I just smiled and nodded at the "fanboy" raves I heard all the time. "They drank the koolaid" I figured. But my Macbook never crashed, ever. Even my most stable Win2K and XP machines crashed once a week or so. The only thing that ever crashed on my (2 year old G4) Macbook was Excel, go figure.

I'm not a Mac zealot or a fanboy, but I know what works and what doesn't. I can see there's a big price difference between a low end PC and even the most basic Mac. This cost is not something you can ignore, and not everyone can afford a Mac.

But I think the difference is worth it. Why?

1) OS X vs Windows whatever. It just works. If you haven't tried it, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

2) Security. I spend over $100 on my two PCs on anti-virus/security software every year and I still get a virus/spyware every once in a few years. Never got nothing on my Macs.

3) Mean rate of failure. Dells are cheap because they have cheap components. They fail at a much higher rate than Macs. If your hard-drive doesn't crash on your Dell you may feel great that you saved the extra cash. If it does and they have to replace it you've lost big, even if they fix it for free (hah!) and restore everything. Insurance is a waste of money, unless you actually need it.

4) Customer Support. Year in and year out Apple is number one. Dell? I hear they used to be pretty good.

5) They look good. Why do people buy VW Beetles, PT Cruisers, Mini Coopers, etc. Looking cool is clearly worth something (hard to say just how much - cool isn't everything). While there are a few hip Lenovos and Sonys out there (not cheap either mind you), most PCs and Laptops look pretty plain vanilla.

6) They're expanding market share while making a healthy profit. For a corporation, profit is a good thing.

Don't call somebody a "fanboy" for liking their Mac better than a PC if you've never used one. (Or haven't used one in the last 10 years).

(Oh, and by the way. They don't have a one button mouse.)

I am a MacMan since 1992, and I do love my macs...
BUT
I don't have to defend it against 'evil' PC's like a lot of you do.
I feel treated bad in my wallet by apple since years, and sure, I like to pay less.
Hardware industry sells for prices less than nothing but an "apple computer" is still a luxury...
Yo, Apple...whassup with that?

This is another stupid mac vs pc price comparison. If the comparison was done right, mac would win alone on its hardware. Then when you add the software part, mac blows away pc prices.

I will never apologize for buying a Mac at a higher price. I have to say that it is more secure and I don't have to reformat my hard drive every 6 mos.(time and mone) A hard drive that was protected by Norton Antivirus, Norton Internet Security, two firewalls that have secured almost every port on the planet, and my home network is in stealth mode. The Black Hats make it their business to continue to exploit security vunerabilities in the Windows World. In the Mac world, it is a small issue. I do believe Unix is the most secure OS, correct techies?

Since having a Unix Based operating system, I have not had any of the security breaches that I suffered with Windows... and I surf the net heavily.

Secondly, how's VISTA working for ya. But don't get too comfortable, because the next Windows OS is making it's debut soon, and if you don't upgrade in a few years, most of your software will be come obsolete. Microsoft is in a big battle with big business about not supportin XP. Well, maybe you will get into a computer more cheaply, but on the back end, you can compare the true price tag, with virus protection software a requirement for windows; OS upgrades that cost you money; and support needed to keep you computer clean... I'm sure us Mac users will win hands down since all of that is practically built in to the package. Consider "no OS obsolescence" hmmmmm...

Of course, "Immediate gratification" is the mantra of the day, like "cheaper, faster, and somebody's definition of better". So, this discussion is not surprising to me.

I agree, we should all get along no matter what, but there are always pros and cons to every picture... not one thing is better than the rest.

I do like the FORD vs Mercedes conversations, because I drive the Mercedes, what's in your driveway.

You just took the lowest Celeron Desktop and compared it to a PENRYN 2.4ghz dual core????

omg... you really shouldn't talk computer when you don't know what you're talking...

you pay for hardware, look and application quality when you buy a mac...

not a cheap setup, case and application.... that's why Pc can be cheaper... they are CHEAP...

Hey, I would like to see Apple cut its prices by a couple hundred dollars, just like anyone else. How can WE convince them it's a good idea, though?
Chances are they aren't going to see the profit in selling them for less, even though they are more likely to sell more and increase their profits by cutting prices. I think they should be more than able to do that without cutting corners. But for whatever reason, they haven't.

I don't know what you all are doing to these Vista PCs to make them crash. I've given up my macbook to my wife. I tried and returned 3 24" imacs due to shitty screens and finally purchased a really fast Dell desktop for much less money than the imac. It has not crashed on me once and I've had so little issues with it compared to when I was using Leopard. My company is an all-mac shop and there's always problems with both neighboring workstations as well as mine.

Pre-sp1 vista sucked, I'll admit, which was why I tried the mac. But, SP1 fixed a LOT of issues and I really enjoy it now. I can run all my software I want, faster, as well as run all my games, faster, and cheaper.

OSX isn't bad. I just feel it's overrated and Vista is underrated, especially now after bugs have been fixed in both OSes. I thought aqua was pretty, yea, but I felt "limited", as Apple seems to dumb-down their software for the average user and "wow" them with glossy buttons/icons. Also, it didn't play well with my windows machines and printing on the network. Boot camp never worked even after a fresh install. Oh well.

The people in my company who use macs are not computer literate at all (I guess they feel good about paying extra for systems that crash regularly). Our OSX server literally has issues about once a week.

This is coming from a guy who has tried macs for well over a year now in his daily routine (home and work) and has come to the conclusion that I much prefer Vista (sp1 of course). I'm a web software developer and have been an overall computer geek since early childhood. Take my argument how you like.

There is no way that the $550 PC is as well equipped as the $1,543 Mac - NO WAY. It's like comparing apples to oranges... no pun intended.

By using "average prices" without any actual system specs makes this comparison absolutely worthless.

True, Macs still cost a little more, but they are worth more too. You get what you pay for.

Any computer that running Windows is crippled right out of the gate!

If you've ever actually USED a PC or Windows, then the answer to your question is clear. I would (and could) pay 3X as much for Mac as a PC. Kthx.

My Mac Pro 8 core has made my life a lot easier. The OS is better, apps are way better. To me it's well worth the price. Time is money hands down. I'm a web designer/developer plus I edit video for local commercials.

I think you are missing the whole point here. Yes Windows based computers do have a little better hardware than do Apple computers but that really isn't the selling point for Apple. With Windows you have to worry about Vista! It is a memory hog, it's unreliable, and let us not forget you will have to spend money on anti-virus, anti-spyware, and other extras just to keep the os halfway clean. With OSX you don't have to worry about those things. You get to work without having to worry about viruses or spyware eating up your computer. Also Mac users buy a Mac for their style. The smooth corners and minimal ports and buttons all add to the Mac experience. Also just the overall experience of using a Mac is well worth the extra money. With Windows I don't see how anyone can have a good time. With Mac everything just seems to flow together.

Apple isn’t interested in the lower end of the market, sells no products for that segment, so it’s average selling prices are higher than the other OEMs who duke it out with low end offerings.

If you compare all-in-one 19”-22” desktops from Apple, Dell, HP, Gateway and Sony, you would find that Apple prices on the iMac are right in line with the offerings from those other OEM’s. If you look at the Mac Mini vs other PC’s in the same class (although there aren’t many from top OEMs), you would also the price is not out of wack. On notebooks the $1000 macbook is on the high side for what you get, but maybe by 20% not twice. The Macbook Pro is expensive, but you can find expensive notebooks from other vendors. The MacPro is very expensive, but having two processors you can’t compare it to other desktops PCs.

i'd buy a mac except for being associated with all the mac users would kill me. what a bunch of head in the sand, holier than thou jerks.

your product is not 3x better. i'm an it person and have to deal with macs with the same frequency as pcs, but the joyful stupidity of the average mac user makes them twice a much of a pain to deal with.

just love when a mac user turns on internet sharing and kicks the dhcp server for the network off. now does apple tell you anywhere that internet sharing starts up a dhcp server on the mac? no. is that intuitive?

Take the $739 Dell, add in $75 for each of the following:

Photography software
Musicmaking software
Movie editing and DVD authoring software
Website software
Annual anti-virus software

and you've got a Dell which costs similar to a Mac...

not to mention all the trial software thrown a Windows machine paid for by the software developers to subsidize the computer price...

There is a market for both and as such, both will coexist... some don't need nor want the aforementioned software and needs are basic so will purchase a windows machine

others want a great computing experience with endless options and ease of use..

The Mac is worth the difference. It's why they outsell the competition in spite of the price. Right out of the box, the average user is going to be more productive and happier on a Mac. So how much is THAT worth?

You get what you pay for. I have no trouble spending for a great product.

OSX will never sell me on a machine, and I have a hard time looking at anything besides a tower. So looking at what Apple offers I have no interest. I would rather build my tower, not buy an overpriced laptop. Now if they found a way to compete for my money I would begin to consider it, but overall it is not efficient for me to pay that much for what is offered and still not be able to run visual studio at the same time. This article points out one of the major points I have made on why I will never own another apple computer.

I work with SELinux, Ubuntu, Enterprise Redhat, WinXP, Win Server 2003, and OS X. So its safe to say I am very familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of each. In short, I'm no fanboy.

That said, the author of this article makes the mistake of looking at ASP and not spec-to-spec as many have pointed out, and he also makes the mistake of not considering the architectural differences and does not consider the software side of the equation.

Apple is priced higher than the lowest end PCs, but those PCs lack the superior bus architecture of an Apple. They also cannot allocate memory and processor power as efficiently. This is why Macs have historically been able to do far more with less for many years. This is evident if you do any video or audio compositing/rendering as I do. Or if you do very intensive photo work or 3-D rendering. At the heart of the OS is a UNIX kernel. That in itself is worth paying more.

It is by nature more stable, more secure, more scalable, and crunches numbers better than any other type. This is why UNIX is the backbone for the internet and ALL communications systems. Its why almost all render farms in Hollywood and all banking systems run either Linux, UNIX, or ....OS X.

Add to this that because UNIX kernels are built primarily for security, whereas Windows is not, you have immunity to better than 95% of most viral exploits without having to run anti-virus. In most cases simply being up to date in the software and not being a dumb administrator is enough. Again, worth paying more.

Now consider all of the free production software that comes with a Mac. You can web design, produce music, edit and produce video, code, and more right out of the box at near professional levels. NO other company offers more or even comes close to this. That in itself is worth the cost of a cheap PC laptop.

This brings us to professional software. If you produce music, film/video, professional photography, or do any type of industrial or graphic design you will find Apple is the industry standard and benchmark. It is simply the most capable, most advanced, most COST EFFECTIVE, and most stable/secure platform upon which to base your business. I should also add that in science, OS X and Linux/UNIX are the standard bearers as well.

Macs also enjoy much longer life as production machines. My Dells tend to die in 2-3 years, while my Macs have been soldiering on for about 7-8 years (no viruses or failures). This means from a productive business standpoint, 1 Mac is worth 2-3 PCs. This negates the premium and saves my business money.

So whats my point? While you can buy an Aveo to get from point A to point B, sometimes you need a BMW. All systems are not created equal, and at this time no PC systems offer it all to power users such as myself, while Apple does.

My expertise is in:
System administration, system security, portal development, video/film production, music production, rendering, taxonomical data modeling and data mining.

http://www.itworld.com/mac-hacked-first-in-contest-080327

mac hacked first

all the fanbois should remember if the world all ran osx there would be viruses and trojans written for that too and there would be more software choices to install which would cause more problems crashes which is what causes 99% of probs in the Windows world today.

How many have reinstalled Windows XP clean with std apps and been amazed at how fast things are?

This goes out to all the Mac fan boys/girls out there.

(SFW)

http://i31.tinypic.com/2ywyao7.jpg

Also, please understand that OSX is a shell of an OS. You basically have the AOL of the OS world.

Learn to use Linux and build your own PC's before you decide to post your Mac Opinion all over a blogg which had NPA data stating how over priced your toy of a "computer" acutally costs.

Good day sir.

The main issue I have with Macs is the fact that they're overpriced eye candy. That's all they are, and that's all they're going to be, unless Apple decides to make them more affordable. I personally don't have any issues with using a Mac versus a PC, I just don't see myself spending $2,000 or more dollars for a Mac, when I KNOW I can get a PC that is just as good, has more Ram installed, a bigger hard drive, a processor that is just as good, because Macs now use Intel processors anyway, and everything else I want, and, oh yeah, it will run every single program I have flawlessly all for a price range of $700 - $800. I'm not the typical PC user that doesn't know how to stay away from viruses on various websites. I'm not the typical PC user that doesn't use an antivirus program, but relies on Windows XP's built-in, useless security system. Even as I type this, I'm using a Dell Latitude C600 laptop that has a Pentium 3 processor in it with 256 mb of RAM, which is going to be upgraded very soon to the maximum 512 mb of RAM, and guess what: I can already run Photoshop CS2, Illustrator CS2, and a whole slew of other programs as well. So , yeah, Macs aren't superior. They're just overpriced computers that people use so they can feel elite and better than everyone else.

OSX is Luxury

Why does everyone always say that Apple hardware is "overpriced"? And why does no one say that Windows PC hardware is "underpriced"?

Windows PC hardware is massively subsidized by pre-installed, useless software. Microsoft is willing to take a huge loss on it's products in order to increase market share (thus offering huge discounts and incentives for preinstalling windows). Many retailers (Best Buy anyone?) sell hardware at a loss in order to upsell on things like printers, monitors, etc. Many Windows PC manufacturers use 3rd party hardware/chipsets that aren't on the Windows Hardware Compatibility List. Then there are issues like smaller power supplies than future "upgrading" may require, or things like busses being slowed down in order to accommodate out of date peripheral connections like Serial or Parallel. Windows PCs also tend to have a much (much) lower resale value and a smaller length of time they can be deemed "useful" or are supported. Windows PCs also have notoriously bad tech support, most of it farmed overseas, that's if they have any tech support at all, as many house-brand PCs have little more than a blanket warranty.

Saying it's overpriced is unfair. Not because it's Apple, but because it's like comparing a pencil to a drafting pen. They do the same thing and the pencil's cheaper, but the line the pen draws is more solid, more accurate. It's designed for a specific function, rather than being an all-around writing instrument. It will last longer, and do exactly what it's designed to do.

To GraphicArtist2k5:

I suggest you try running Photoshop CS2 or Illustrator CS2 while at the same time rendering and encoding 2 hours of video in the background. Any machine can run Photoshop CS2 or Illustrator CS2, but very few can multitask those programs while also running something as intense as Maya, Final Cut Pro, Avid, Lightwave, or Logic Pro.

Claiming that Macs are simply eye candy without giving consideration to the ability to multithread natively, while claiming you can run Photoshop CS2 or Illustrator CS2 as though that is a bench mark tells me you are not a pro-level user and don't actually understand computing hardware.

It has nothing to do with being elite and has everything to do with using the right tool for the job at hand. All OSs have their uses, strengths, weaknesses. This is why I have a mix of Windows, Mac, and Linux running.

Operating systems can be changed, you don't have to run Windows just because it's a PC. The hardware itself on a PC is far easier to change. You also don't have to buy a Dell, no one's forcing you to. No one's forcing you to install Windows, there's plenty of Linux options. OSX is derived from Linux is it not?

I primarily use my computer for gaming and internet, there's no need for a Mac for those things since there's more options for browsing than IE. Generally the RAM and video cards in the Mac are worse than a similarly priced PC. Why pay more just because it's a shiny gray box with a proprietary icon on the back? Macs have problems too, or you wouldn't have the technicians at the Apple store. You have to replace a Mac to upgrade as opposed to replacing a part or two on the PC.

Comparing a Mac and a PC is more like comparing a Ford with a Mazda, they both use some similar parts manufactured at the same plant (referring to Intel processors) and both have the same function but the Mazda has more special options and has a more stylish body and comes with a price premium because it's "foreign."

The market offers higher end shoes, watches, tvs, cars, food, beer and every other thing you can think of. Theres a reason why you can by a hyundai and you can buy a bmw. If you dont see the point of a bmw then dont buy it. anybody who cries about macs being expensive is either bored or cant afford one. If your windows PC is so much better, then why the hell do you care what a mac costs.

P.S blogging is stupid.

> Rich Webster wrote: OS X is worth the $700 difference, easy.

Maybe for you, but for me OSX is horribly contemptible. OSX is the nazi, authoritarian, father-knows-best, control freak OS of choicelessness. There is practically nothing of significance that I can customize. I can't turn the crappy graphical FX off, I'm forced to go thru their evil one-at-a-time interface to change the hosts file, and that file manager (aka finder) is straight out of 1993. When is Jobs going to discover the tree view that every other file manager has had for the last ten years? He did accept the idea of a 2 button mouse until last year, so I'm not expecting much on this front either.

what we knew along and the Maccies will try and spin it with resale value and car and hooker anologgies

Face it Macites - your King has no clothes.

It might be more convincing if they compared computers with identical specs

I'm sorry, what communist country are you from? Here in the west we have a free-market economy where people can place any price on almost any goods and services. You want to wear Gucci but only want to pay Wal-Mart prices? Okay, that's an exaggerated gap in price and quality but the fact that both Gucci and Wal-Mart can exist in the same economy provides consumers the privilege of choice.

Choice is an indicator of a strong economy. High-end and low-end goods that provide the same basic type of satisfaction are a good thing for the consumer. Besides, computers (MAC or PC) are basically luxury items. No one NEEDS a PC to survive so quibbling over a few hundred dollar difference for a luxury good just to e-mail, surf the net and perform online banking or playing games is moot! Over-analyzing the price differences and trying to discover the rational behind it is beyond moot!

good luck with that DNS fix apple offered...

Why is it that all the Mac drones go on about how they don't have system problems. I have friends and family that have Macs and are always calling me and asking how to fix their boxes just as much as Windows systems.
I personally prefer Linux. I can get and enjoy configuring the system to behave the way I want and it's the most stable platform I've ever used. Windows, Mac, FreeBsd, Solaris, VMS, HP UX and so on included in that comparison.
I have sent days with a Mac trying to get to work the way I need and eventually gave up. I just can't use the interface. It is just to difficult for me. I don't have that kind of time. I need to configure the system so I can get things done fast and with stability.
I am impressed that core technologies to the latest version of the Mac OS are fully POSIX compliant and can now actually be called UNIX. This is a huge selling point for me.
I am really glad that people get use out of Mac and are willing to pay the price for yesterdays technology at tomorrows prices. Good for you. It keeps the economy going and at least the dollars stay mostly in the US. Right now I really think we need all the help we can get.
I just can't justify the headache and excessive time expenditure to use a Mac. I mean I might as well use Windows if I want that kind of struggle.

The L0grus

Feature for feature, and including worthwhile bundled software, Macs are worth it if you aren't going for the cheap end of WIndows boxes.
And Apple does have competent support techs.
Unfortunately, they need those techs, because their hardware reliability stinks, in my personal experience. That might be fine for some people, but I find getting anything fixed is a waste of my time; I want something that doesn't break.
I bought my first and last Mac in June 2007, and three hardware failures later (mostly intermittent problems), I feel comfortable with their support -but reliability is too important to me to mess with this. $2000 for something that breaks is way too much. This makes it the worst of my 4 laptops over the past 10 plus years.
I'd rather suffer with Vista than spend hours getting the piece of crap fixed. (Minimum of 40 minutes travel round trip from work; longer from home; 3 trips to get it fixed (diagnosis, drop off, pick up) and I've wasted $300 of my time so far, with another $300 to go once I can give up the machine for the time it takes to get fixed. Which means buying another machine, since my others are old and unreliable. And that won't be a Mac.

The advantage of using expensive mobile technology is: energy savings. Macs are much more energy efficient (and quiet) than the bulky cheap PC's

I'm a MAC buyer for home stuff but a PC user at work. We use Windows machines at work because the apps we use don't run on a MAC--that's fine. We will use whatever it takes to get the job done. My company doesn't buy MACs or PCs because they are MACs or PCs, we buy computing power that will help us make money. We are in business to make money. If MACs can help us run our business to make more money then we'll switch. If it's PCs then we use PCs.

Apple knows this so they're playing to the consumer that wants their product. Do you think that all or most of the MAC buyers out there actually take advantage of all the stuff that comes with a MAC? My wife wanted a MAC because her friends each own one. I know for a fact that not one of those women use their MACBook Pros beyond e-mail and surfing the net! I, on the other hand do use MAC apps because they are convenient. Since I have the money and the choice I prefer to buy a MAC.

Not to brag, but my wife and I drive a BMW and a Volvo respectively. We could live with a Honda or Toyota but prefer the German and Swedish flavors for our cars. We don't "quibble" over the price differences. They all provide the same functions that we need for our lifestyles.

The over-analysis of the subject shows that you guys (we, me included) have way too much time and money on our hands to be be even discussing this subject.

Move on with your lives and enjoy the freedom to choose or not choose.

To asdf :

You do realize that OS X is essential BSD UNIX with a nice GUI on top, don't you? Being UNIX you can always fall back to the command line to do ANYTHING you want. Being UNIX, its far more customizable than DOS, but you need to know what you are doing. Which sounds like you don't if you can't turn off graphic effects. Here's a hint: Get a book. Read it.

Sorry for being a dick, but you are essentially complaining something sucks because YOU don't know how to use. So educate yourself man.

You can customize OS X, you can turn on/off effects. And Finder is fine...provided you learn to use it.

paul fletcher :

People are stating facts. Macs do enjoy FAAAR higher resell because those are more useful for much longer and are less headaches for both hardware/software. And car references do work here. Some of us like Chevys, but they are really the "BMW" of computing and thats fine. Just as with BMW you get a richer user experience. They make a fine machine, which also happens to run Windows much better and faster than ANY other hardware.

Where Apple falls short is gaming. No one can touch PC's game selection. So it comes down to whats important to you. If its gaming and email and office stuff you want a PC. If its office stuff, creative stuff, UNIX stuff get a MAC. Being a gamer I'm satisfied with a PC, though my buddy develops PC simulation gaming using a highend Mac Pro workstation with emulation to run Windows. Why? Its the best hardware for what he does.

And I'm a Windows guy....an honest Windows guy.

Just got my macbook and the first time in a long long time I am enjoying using a computer.

Display FABULOUS
SOUND - FABULOUS
OS - QUICK and smooth with 1g
going to get 4gb and guess what IT CAN USE IT!!

ALL UNIX -- had so many headaches with XP and LINUX just gave up no pleasure just a royal pain

UNIX with a standard JRE WHAT A CONCEPT
PYTHON - BUILT IN
PERL - BUILT IN

WORTH EVERY PENNY as far as I'm Concern

So much disinformation, so little time......I guess comparing Macs with similarly equipped PCs is too hard a task.

On first glance Joe makes a compelling case for buying the Dell, if you only consider the hardware specs and the price.

Putting the Mac vs. PC thing aside for the moment (I'm a Mac user), I've noticed that most IT professionals and most of the tech magazine pundits and reviewers usually base their opinions solely on specs, features and price. The average consumer looks to these guys for advice, because they're the experts, and higher specs and more features for less money is always a good thing... right?

When it comes to technology, maybe, maybe not...

I've noticed that in a lot of these articles and in conversations with most technology professionals that things like user experience, ease of use, and ergonomics, generally take a back seat to features and price.

This creates a pretty big problem for the the average consumer. They see that $700 Dell, read the reviews and seek advice from the friendly neighborhood Geek. And all point to buying that Dell. It seems like an informed decision... However, the experts never seem to factor the end user into the equation. They also rarely factor in the cost of anti-viral software, and the cost of upgrading up from the all, but unusable "Home Edition" of Windows... The average PC user (PC or Mac) knows just enough to surf the web, email, use MS Office and whatever other programs or games they use... They generally can not do even the most basic of maintenance tasks without help, and forget about troubleshooting any problems that occur. Dell and other PC manufacturers make it worse, by not including a system restore disk with these cheap computers, requiring the customer--who knows nothing--to immediately back up their system. Then, along with Best Buy, Circuit City, and others, sell substandard support packages to this same consumer. Doesn't that add considerably to the cost of ownership? Where's the value in that?

Yes the Mac costs more, but the OS is the same across all models and requires a lot less involvement from the enduser. Apple also has the best customer service in the industry. Does that not add value to the purchase?

Great design, ease of use, and great customer service are also the reason why the iPod is such a HUGE success. On paper, almost all of its competitors have better specs, more features and cost less... but what were the two biggest problems with most MP3 players, until recently? Getting the music onto the player and figuring out how to use it. Yet those issues are glossed over on not even addressed by most reviewers...

Its funny how many friends and associates criticize, or even laugh at the price I paid for all of my Macs and iPods, my Airport extreme and other Apple hardware, but then come to me for help when their $600 PC, $50 wireless router, and sub $100 MP3 player don't work as advertised. But then, that's what happens when all one cares about is price...

This analysis is flawed by an apples to oranges comparison that makes the author's conclusion thoroughly without merit. That iMac uses a laptop motherboard with embedded ATI or NVIDIA graphics. It uses traditional laptop form-factor RAM. The current models contain a Core 2 Duo Allendale or Wolfdale with an 1600mhz FSB and 800mhz an memory bus. The author didn't talk about that, did he?

Further, the author compares a typical Dell desktop tower, with a standard motherboard, CPU, and high wattage power supply - and all the loud fans that come with that - against an iMac that may use a more expensive laptop motherboard and CPU pair, but is completely quiet. There's not a single fan in an iMac, nor does it consume even half the sustained wattage of a typical desktop PC.

And ask backing evidence the author did not research specs or performance. No. The author asked Gartner for a quote. Because Gartner is going to give him unbiased IT advice. Riiiiiight.

This is yet another pathetic example of ignorant editorialists pimping ideology instead of facts. Which is why I don't read IT rags any longer.

My profession: IT manager at a well known technical university on the east coast. You figure it out.

The nail in the coffin...

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/08/08/vista39s-security-rendered-completely-useless-by-new-exploit

...sorry, but you get your money's worth with Apple. The time saved from dealing with Windows weaknesses is worth a lot more than ANY premium cost. Especially when IT folk can charge $75 per hour(my rate).

Your underlying assumption is that value to the end user is a function of features (memory, hard drive space, screen size, etc).

This might've been largely true for 2+ decades, but I'm not sure it's true now. I would submit that the larger driver of value for consumers is the overall user experience. Obviously a computer needs to play nice with a host of other devices and services...it is here that the Mac seems to excel.

Don't get me wrong, features still play a role, but I'm not sure they are the largest driver behind the choice of a Mac vs a PC.

Last time I checked you get full versions of working software on a Mac. Take the iLife suite for example. All you get is trial crap on a Windows machine. Not to mention dealing with 17 different flavours of the OS. You get the "ultimate" version of the OS when you buy a Mac. It's not stripped down where you have to figure out what level of OS you need now and for the future. You think you can connect to a work domain with the basic version of the Windows OS, think again.

Vista is reason alone to get a Mac. The hours spent maintaining and responding to Vista defects and Windows security problems only makes owning Windows PCs cost effective for one whose time is worth nothing.

The fact that Microsoft is pushing Vista on the public after finally developing a reliable, dependable OS (XP) is indicative of the direction of that overbloated corporation.

My next computer will be a Mac or, coming up fast,
a Linux OS to replace Windows.

granted the Mac Mini starts at $599, but its sales volume is negligible.

How does this make it more expensive than a PC?

Microsoft SUCKS, MAC works everytime.
After 16 yrs of Microcrap, blue screens, crashes, viruses, patches, I switched to MAC.
It's worth 1,000 times the price!
I will NEVER use windows again.

To Jono :

"Tom's hardware did a reasonable summary. Macs are not more expensive. Apple just doesn't make cheap no profit trash..."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html

Reasonable summary? Never in the history of tomshardaware.com I've seen an article so biased. It received hundreds of replies, I read about 200 hundred of them, and not one agrees with the author. Since most of members are techies, they argued with facts, not guts. People, read the mentioned article in tomshardware and then the replies, you'll find out that if U get a MAC, you are paying a lot more for the "coolness", there´s no smart technical or economical reason to do so.

I just got a MacBook, and while it was $1499 ($1750 with accessories, $1,000 more than my vista laptop), I feel it was well worth it. As Apple says: "It Just Works". This has been completely true for me, and that in itself is worth it I feel.

there are a lot of different discussions going on in this thread. probably because the article is so misleading to begin with.

1. ASP (average selling price) comparison is distinctly different than any spec or functionality comparison. it simple is the cost of all the computers bought divided by the quantity. in that comparison, macs have an ASP at least 2X the rest. no argument, no reason to defend your man/womanhood. this simply means that the people who bought macs bought computers that on the average cost twice as much as the people who bought pc's.

there are a lot of possible reasons for this. let's try a few:

in just these few examples that make up the total computer purchase market yields very different purchase/price points. there is nothing pointy headed or snobbish about these differences, they just exist and the article is just stating that finding.

2. trying to integrate the ASP discussion with a comparison of particular models and brands of computers is senseless and unnecessary. the ASP point is made for whatever value that exist for it and further comparison is illegitimate. that is what is wrong with the logic of the article. OK data, wrong assumption. the end.

3. to add my own critic of the comparison of laptops, the apple is one pound lighter. one pound people. you are comparing soup bones and filet mignon. sorry, could not leave that one alone.

4. apple designs solutions, not products. they are unfairly criticized for that by people and industry members who lack the vision or market muscle to do that. they are not perfect, but for a consumer, without the support of a geek in the family, they are usually the best choice. the funniest thing i see happening is those geeks are migrating to macs after they talked grandma into getting a dell or hp. hope they can keep up on their skills.

5. there will be those who start talking anti-trust because of their strong vertical integration. that's where their small marketshare will shelter them. one reason they do not bottom feed and sell at razor thin margins is they need those lost sales to keep their marketshare from ever exceeding 50%, or even 30%. personally don't believe that they even want to be the #1 because of this. their business model is to make bottom line with higher margins and lower units. hardware is where the lowest margins exist. software and infrastructure is where the highest margins can be found. the non-geek metric here is equity value. homework: what is the combined equity value of dell and hp?what is the equity value of apple? and why should anyone tell apple ASP matters?

When I started my own company, I used three Toshiba's in 5 months, failure after failure, not just the hardware, but often windows XP as well.
Last month I checked how much time was wasted on "repairing" the notebook and I was suprised it costed me over 25 hours a month.
Now that is expensive.

Four years later, I used the macbook pro 15" until three months ago, when I bought a 17" hi-res. My wife is now happily using the MBP 15.

Expensive? Three Toshiba's (portege R100, Tecra and a portege M400) costed me well over 7000 bucks and got the boot within months of purchase. After sales service? never heard of! Windows XP? that is not our product, call Microsoft!
the MBP costed me 2000 and still works like a charm. Update of the OS costed 129... Now what costs an update for Vista?

I advise a lot of people to buy the cheapest (windows) laptops for private use: 450 Euro's will buy you a nice Acer or Asus. But just don't count on any service from any shop or software gigant.

Hey Joe, did you get enough hits to justify and keep your job with this poorly researched, baiting "article"?

You do people on both sides of the the fence a disservice with drivel like this. Compare machines with COMPARABLE specs and components and maybe we'll take it (and even you) seriously.

BTW folks, Mac is short for Macintosh. Mac is NOT and acronym.

Earlier this year I replaced my Windows desktop with a Mac.

I ended up with a Mac Pro because the iMacs didn't support more than 4GB of RAM.

In this market, I compared prices with as close as possible configured Dell, and the Mac Pro was $1000 cheaper.

Granted, there were versions of that Dell for cheaper, since Dell offered it with significantly lower clock rates than the Apple offered.

I even priced building the equivalent myself (though as a Windows PC), and the price still came to about where the Mac was priced.

A couple caveats. I already had a display (20"), so I didn't have to buy a higher margin Mac display.

Also, I bought the minimum 2GB of RAM with the Mac, since the margins are high there.

So, if I had priced a display and 4-6GB of RAM much of the gap would have vanished. Especially once I added VMWare and XP Home.

Buying a MAC with Parallels added is well justified.

Compare the Vista machines Hardware, software and development environment against a MAC item for item and the price differences narrow, if not disappear. Anyother comparision without a detailed comparision is unfair.

In addition factor in the numerous headaches that the VISTA user is encountering verses the MAC user and you will quickly see why there is
a migration to MAC over Windows.

Wow, the average price of a meal at Morton's is *way* higher than the average price of a meal at McDonald's. What a rip off!!!

*rolls eyes*

Yes, Apple needs to cut pricing on its entry-level laptops. No question. They also need to bump up the hard drives and RAM to compete with the current offerings in the PC world. That said, it's ludicrous to compare average pricing when many of your Apple laptops are loaded with features not found in typical PC laptops (illuminated keyboards, built-in webcams, ambient light sensors, aluminum bodies, etc.). Premium products = premium pricing. It works for Apple, it works for Apple customers. Why the hate?

Macintosh. More expensive. And worth every penny.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html

windows works good only if your a PC TECH that knows what your doing and a GAMER that has accepted the stupid quirks that arise.
if you dont fall into this catagory a Windows based PC is not for you.
stop the stress and by a MAC.
an old used G5 based machine will do as well.

I've never had a virus on a Mac. Enough said.

Oh what lulz. You people need to get off of the internet. I'm surprised most Mac users can find the power button, to be honest. If you know nothing about computers, why are you having this argument? And all of this anecdotal evidence, please spare us. I have had XP SP3 up with no problems and a dual boot to Arch Linux. All of you people complain that windows sucks, it's probably because you got a virus by being stupid and just blamed it on windows. I have never had a problem with my computer and I user no firewall\av software. And as for hardware failures, Apple uses the same components as PCs I'm sure 99 percent of use a computer to go on myspace. I challenge anyone to beat my recent PC build performance wise to cost with a Mac and prove to me that OSX if worth anything. "It just works" Clearly your brain doesn't

To be honest this article is just flamebait.. and a little outdated.

On 4th Aug 2008, Tom's Hardware did a fair review and compared Mac vs PC prices.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html

The summary is that prices are much closer than most people realise - and (as most Apple users already know) you dont buy upgrades from Apple as they are expensive.

If people ask me why I buy a Mac over a PC.. and what the difference is as they are "just computers"..
I say.. well.. why do you drive that BMW.. it is just a car isn't it? why didn't you buy that Ford.. there's nothing wrong with it.. same performance, better price.. etc
Then they go on about quality.. driver experience.. the setup etc..
That then ususally answers their own question..

I feel that I must counter some arguments here.

First, people are misconstruing the article to mean PCs are going to be a better value than Macs. That's not what I got from it. The article is putting forth a price/spec comparison of similar systems. Not the same systems. He compares the iMac to the Dell tower because they are both "entry-level" systems with similar processing power. This is what throws people off. Yes, it's apples-to-oranges, but it's not the actual computers he's comparing, it's the prices of systems targeted to users with the same needs.

iMacs and low-end Dells both target the market of the casual user. The person who browses the web, uses IMs, writes emails, does their taxes, writes letters, et cetera. The iMac, of course, is slightly more powerful and uses more expensive hardware intended for laptops.

However, if that user who doesn't care about snazzy looks and small desk footprint goes in with no prejudice concerning one OS over another, which one will be chosen every time? That's right. And until Mac is more competitive in this market, people won't be experiencing its proprietary OS that really is near-perfect for the casual non-tech user. That's the problem. Sure, people might think it's worth the price but there's no way to try it for any length of without paying that high price. So people go with what they're familiar with, which also happens to be nicer to their wallets. Mac loses a possible convert.

I must also say that I'm new to Vista, having recently built myself a system that utilizes Vista 64bit. I was impressed, to say the least, and continue to be. It is very snappy, running quicker than XP ever has for me (and my XP machine was near-top-end just 3 years ago). I've also used OSX on some of the recent-model iMacs (not certain of the specs, but it was purchased new less than a year ago) at one of my clients' locations, and though pretty was a bit sluggish. I use Arch Linux as well, for my file server.

Overall, I'd have to say that I like OSX but was not as impressed with its performance as I thought I would be, though I definitely see its appeal. I've been working with Vista x64 for a month now with no issues whatsoever. Granted, I do have a top-end AV (Eset NOD32) as well as internet common sense, and have thus not had any spyware/malware/viruses.

For the commodity vs luxury people: Since the migration to Intel-based architecture, Macs have had near-identical hardware to PCs. It's not like comparing a BMW to a Ford, it's like comparing an Expedition to a Navigator. Sure, they look different and one is cushier, with an easier ride and prettier paint job.However, they have the same chassis, same drivetrain, same engine. One's branded Ford (Dell), one's branded Lincoln (Mac), but their parts come from the same company (Intel and a collection of hardware OEMs that produce the hard drives, video cards, LCD monitors, etc. that are used in both PCs and Macs). The biggest difference is in the OS, which I think would convert many people to Mac were it more accessible.

Finally, I'd like an honorable mention for those Mac fanboys in this thread (not all or even a majority posting their support of Apple). Your comparison of anything without an Apple stamp to a $1 whore or a Yugo has little tact and does nothing but support the oft-wrong stereotype of Mac users as arrogant pricks buying into a fashion statement or trend. Please shut the hell up for the sake of your own cause, you do nothing but scare people off of Apple. If that's your goal, to keep the riff-raff out of your shiny-white-plastic clique, you're not doing anything for your beloved Apple but losing them customers and money.

Hi Mark,
Re "it's like comparing an Expedition to a Navigator."

Apologies, you are right.. (from EU) so I think its like comparing a Saab and a Vetra or a Seat and VW?

Not sure. The Expedition and Navigator are basically the same vehicle, built on the same frame but with different body styles. Lincoln is Ford Motor Company's luxury brand, and the Navigator is essentially a luxury Expedition.

I'm not familiar enough with European brands to make a comparison. Maybe like Infiniti and Nissan or Lexus and Toyota, only less of a difference between lines - the main differences are in appearance, comfort, and price.

We don't have Seat or Vetra in America, so I don't know if they have any parallels.

I've used MACS now for 25 years and have never had one crash, freeze up, or get a virus.

I like Macs...

This debate makes me think about another debate; VHS vs Beta hmm.... Beta was suppose to be better but now we all have Lion King and the original Star Wars on VHS tapes though.

maybe I do like Macs because of the cool factor...they also tend to operate a bit faster than PCs and I really like time and I can't imagine having to spend extra time while video editing which already demands a lot.... I love my Final Cut sleek designs in additional to everything else, so I'll pay the extra money just like I do with my Starbucks, limited edition tennis shoes and Express clothes. But I am just a young teen with his priorities all wrong.

First of all, let's be real about a few points.
First Macs are nothing but Intel PC's with a rom chip and Mac O.S.
Second If Mac is so great why do they run windows
right out of the box. Not enough good apps on the Mac?
Third the reason why Mac says it's so much better
than windows is simply limited volume, Apple only
software and hackers don't care about a non-existing market share computers. I'll give you two examples of this. IBM mainframes have how many compatabilty problems or crashes? SGI-Commodore-Linux-etc machines have how many hackers working on them.
I would like to say that I have used Mac way back to IIc up to Mac pros and like them, but you make good points. Put the Mac_PC debate in reverse, If Mac had 99 percent market share which way do you see the argument going!

Well a quick review of my blog will show you just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Apple’s company policies, employee treatment, and culture. I don’t think that we should support any company that behaves in such a fascist way. At any rate there are a lot of other reasons not to buy an Apple. Windows stinks, there are no 2 ways about that, but it can be secured, there are more applications for it, and you can easily get a machine that has better hardware in it than an Apple for the same price. Since Apple designs slightly different hardware themselves the only standard they have to meet is their own, so when an Apple rep. tells you that the hardware is good you have to ask compared to what? Definitely not when compared to Sun or even Alienware. The Apple techs at work seem to get more bad, dirty, or generally poorly refurbished parts than the Dell techs do. The users never see it so they don’t know. Dell even has the common sense to do things like mount their motherboards on easy to replace, already grounded plates, Apple just sends the parts along hoping that they are being put in in a safe environment, or rather shifting that responsibility to the techs. Still Apple runs Intel chips now, so they are not much different than a mid-grade PC. Plus Apple covers up hardware problems. For example, the HDDs in recent MacBooks (aka the Seagate coverup) where Seagate admitted to their mistake, but Apple kept putting Seagate drives back into MacBooks even after the problem was discovered. Apple has a long history of questionable hardware like most large manufacturers. Apple is very good at saying one thing, but meaning another. They say they don’t have tech support in India, for example, but that doesn’t mean it’s all in the states. They just know that by saying that they can get most customers to say “Thank God I’m getting an Apple.” They also benefit from their support structure where again the consumers don’t see the problems, and their lower percentage of overall machines sold leads to fewer reported problems overall. NOT BECAUSE THEY MAKE BETTER MACHINES. The OS is a little bit better, but you loose hardware control, and the machines are designed to look good first often making them difficult to service even by trained professionals. Plus their parts service flat sucks. You may wait weeks, if not a month to get a machine back and you can’t get parts yourself. Even as a certified tech you have to become a distributor and setup an account with X amount of credit with them to start receiving the parts you need to fix the computer that shouldn’t have broken in the first place. It’s a total pain in the ass. They also offer no accidental warranty coverage. The only model that works on both ends, meaning a good OS with good hardware, is to use Linux. Even Dell offers Linux machines with support now, but the problem with Linux is the availability of 3rd party applications that people have come to rely on. Cross Over helps with this, but vendors need to get behind Linux. Some have. Still this is a small problem to overcome. 90% of people can switch to Linux now, and once that happens vendors will make things for Linux instead of Windoze or Crapple. It’s time to demand real control of our computers and Apple and Microsoft is not going to give us that. Their whole model rotates around creating a single product that they can provide whatever level of support for that they want to. With Linux you pay simply for support, if your support is bad you can just choose another support company. It is a better model for computing period, but Apple is definitely far worse than Microsoft right now. We need something better than Windows, but Apple is not the answer.

"Intel/windows = Buick
PowerPC/OSX = Porsche
Intel/OSX = Ferrari"

This is a pretty inaccurate analogy, given that Buicks are much more reliable than both Porsches and Ferraris :) Of course they lose out on the look and the coolness factor. In fact, Intel/OSX is like a Ferrari that has a maintenance cost of a late-90s Buick Regal :)

Last paragraph mentioned the "more" is vista, for those who dont like it, downgrade. or if downgrade is unavailable, get to like vista, ive lived on xp for its lifetime in the microsoft arsenal, but as they have stopped producing and in a couple of years stop making updates, its time to move into the future, besides werent Imac users skeptical when Leapord opperating system came out?

Seriously, if "your friends" spend 48 hours a month "dealing with the issues" of a Vista machine ... they're really stupid.

Hahaha, I'm running Vista Ultimate SP1 on my Asus EeePC 1000h and it's running flawlessly. No errors, fast boot, responsive, hasn't had one error, crash, BSOD or any inconvenience. And it was only $450. It does everything I need and want it to do, and more (it can even run some older games at reasonable FPS).

I had a acer laptop and xp everthing went wrone with it an it stop working I got a desk top but hate so i getting a I mac I think macs are so much better than microsoft and windows all i had is trouball I had my macbook lap top for 5 mouths now and not a thing go wrong with it so much better than windows and vista is rubbish