... mate.

SNAP!

But that's just it, they are not PCs to the masses until the price comes down in line with PC prices... because if they're just PeeCees, why do they cost more? How can you have it both ways?

Easy. For people that know better, they run OSX on you MAC. For people who need specific applications for whatever reason that only run on windows (or for those who don't know better), they run Windows on your Mac.
It's a win win for Apple. They have the better hardware, they don't care if your run windows on their machines. And the argument with too expensive. I run CS4 on my 5 year old G4 iBook (10.5) with no problems. Try that on a laptop from 2003 running windows vista (if you manage to install it in the first place).

"...They have the better hardware..."

I just don't get that argument. Mac HW reliability is the worst it has ever been, on par w/ PCs. No way it is worth 1.5 to 2x the cost of a Win OS PC.

"I run CS4 on my 5 year old G4 iBook (10.5) with no problems..."

But somehow I don't think you run Windows OS natively on a PPC G4... But you can run OS X on your PPC Mac.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
"...They have the better hardware..."

I just don't get that argument. Mac HW reliability is the worst it has ever been, on par w/ PCs. No way it is worth 1.5 to 2x the cost of a Win OS PC.

"I run CS4 on my 5 year old G4 iBook (10.5) with no problems..."

But somehow I don't think you run Windows OS natively on a PPC G4... But you can run OS X on your PPC Mac.

Configure a Mac and then IDENTICALLY configure a Dell/HP/(Insert NAME BRAND here) and the price differential is not as you say, 1.5-2x. It just isn't. This MYTH just won't die for some reason despite the fact that the numbers don't lie.

Mac enthusiasts always conveniently leave out the low end and assume people have money to spend on the upper-mid range and high end units.

But when Joe sixpack configures a Dell Desktop or Laptop for $399-$499, what configured Mac does he compare it to?

BMW enthusiasts conveniently leave out the Tata Nano, too.

Apple doesn't play in the cheap hardware sandbox for several reasons. First and foremost, there is absolutely no money in it (most of those machines are loss-leaders). Second, it compromises quality to get down that cheap. Machines like that are essentially disposable.

Quote

acdc1174 wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
"...They have the better hardware..."

I just don't get that argument. Mac HW reliability is the worst it has ever been, on par w/ PCs. No way it is worth 1.5 to 2x the cost of a Win OS PC.

"I run CS4 on my 5 year old G4 iBook (10.5) with no problems..."

But somehow I don't think you run Windows OS natively on a PPC G4... But you can run OS X on your PPC Mac.

Configure a Mac and then IDENTICALLY configure a Dell/HP/(Insert NAME BRAND here) and the price differential is not as you say, 1.5-2x. It just isn't. This MYTH just won't die for some reason despite the fact that the numbers don't lie.

Why would I configure a Dell that is identical to a Mac and costs the same when I can configure a better Dell that's cheaper than a Mac?

To the same or better specs for half the price? (ignoring the discount coupons that Dell offers up as enticements. Go list, not specials).

I can't find a Dell configuration to match the baseline Mac Pro (8 core Xeon 2.8) for less than $4K with their discount.

Quote

daemon wrote:
Why would I configure a Dell that is identical to a Mac and costs the same when I can configure a better Dell that's cheaper than a Mac?

Quite frankly, you can't... because no matter what you do, the Dell won't come with OS-X. And even if you install a hacked version, you'll still never have a 100% Mac user experience due to the hardware limitations. And if you're not interested in OS-X, why even bother looking at the Mac? Would you try to use a Ferarri as an SUV?

Being able to run other OS's natively is an additional perk for paying a little more for a genuine Apple computer. The value-base for a Mac is different than a Windows-based PC. Of course, until you side-step the Windows-centric mentality that most PC users have, you'll never really understand this.

Practically everyone I know has switched to a Mac... Daily, I get a kick out of seeing the lightbulbs go on in their eyes when they realize they're now in a different universe with much more flexible possibilities. A common comment I hear is "I had no idea things could be this easy!" I'm a firm believer that this alone is worth the price of admission...

Quote

Intruder wrote:
To the same or better specs for half the price? (ignoring the discount coupons that Dell offers up as enticements. Go list, not specials).

I can't find a Dell configuration to match the baseline Mac Pro (8 core Xeon 2.8) for less than $4K with their discount.

I can configure a better Dell XPS for $1899 compared to a Mac Pro base system at $2299 (the baseline Mac Pro is a 4 core Xeon 2.8Ghz processor, for $500 more you can get a second 4 core Xeon 2.8Ghz processor added on).

Tangent on why Mac Pros suck for consumers:

Here's the thing with Mac Pros, it uses server level hardware, which happens to be woefully over-priced (server level hardware in general, not just Apple), and runs at a lower level performance compared to enthusiast level hardware, still over priced but it's cheaper and faster than server level hardware. What makes server level hardware able to exist is reliability. When you need something running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for the next 20 years, you buy server level equipment. You do this because 1 hour of down time means you loose millions of dollars. Not many people need that level of reliability, but those who do are willing to pay for it, reference the part where you are down for one hour and loose out on millions of dollars (I have been at JP Morgan-Chase at that hour where they lost $500,000,000 because their system wasn't working). The reliability part is what IBM hyped for years, and what engendered the most annoyingly used acronym, and misused acronym, on this website FUD.

So, here's the thing with Mac Pros, you will never find any large company such as Dell, IBM, Lenovo, or HP that makes a price competitive computer that uses the same type of hardware as the Mac Pro, because they don't have to. The people who purchase those types of computers do so based on reliability, not on cost. Whoever has the best reputation for reliability is more than likely going to be the most expensive.

But for those of us who need to worry about an hour of down time costing us only a couple hundred or thousand dollars, the cost of reliability compared to performance gets a little ridiculous. So if 'system a' is faster and cheaper than 'system b', but not quite as reliable (say a 2% chance of hardware failure compared to .001% chance of hardware failure over a 5 year period) then most reasonable people will choose 'system a' over 'system b', even though it has a failure rate 2,000 times greater than system b. And this becomes even more attractive when the cost of the failure is less than the difference in cost between 'system a' and 'system b'.

Quote

Hengemasta wrote:

Quote

daemon wrote:
Why would I configure a Dell that is identical to a Mac and costs the same when I can configure a better Dell that's cheaper than a Mac?

Quite frankly, you can't... because no matter what you do, the Dell won't come with OS-X. And even if you install a hacked version, you'll still never have a 100% Mac user experience due to the hardware limitations. And if you're not interested in OS-X, why even bother looking at the Mac? Would you try to use a Ferarri as an SUV?

Well honest, I'm not impressed by OS X. It is neither more stable for my purposes compared to Windows XP or Windows Vista, nor is it easier to use.

As for why bother looking at the Mac, I do so for the same reason that I look at Intel CPUs, chipsets, and graphics even though every time I buy computers I choose an AMD CPU, a nVidia chipset, and a nVidia graphics card. Because I want to be well informed when I make a purchase, when I discuss computers with others, and when I am supplying break-fix support as a Field Engineer in the Financial sector (I provide on-site support for banks, government entities, utilities, hospitals, and Boeing too).

Quote

Being able to run other OS's natively is an additional perk for paying a little more for a genuine Apple computer.

Apparently you aren't aware that OS X can run natively on any x86 processor, not just Apple's.

You see, when Apple made computers that used the motorola and powerPC processors, x86 processors were not able to run Mac OS natively, and had to use an emulator. Currently the only thing preventing OS X running on any x86 computer in the world is a hardware validation switch in software, nothing else. That's why a patched version of OS X runs perfectly fine on Hackintoshes.

Quote

The value-base for a Mac is different than a Windows-based PC. Of course, until you side-step the Windows-centric mentality that most PC users have, you'll never really understand this.

Hmm, faster, cheaper, capable of actually running what I want. I guess you're right, I will have to get over my mentality that those things are what I want.

Quote

Practically everyone I know has switched to a Mac...

Practically everyone I know couldn't careless if they're using a Mac or a PC. Because practically everyone I know use their computers for browsing the web and email. My 386 from Packard Bell could do that. I happen to be a bit more discerning when it comes to what I want to do with my computer, that's why I build my own.

Quote

Daily, I get a kick out of seeing the lightbulbs go on in their eyes when they realize they're now in a different universe with much more flexible possibilities. A common comment I hear is "I had no idea things could be this easy!" I'm a firm believer that this alone is worth the price of admission...

Meh. I always find it funny when people say things like that. Mostly because I never had any problem with what they called "hard".

Daemon,

Out of curiosity, why do you consider the Core2Duo chip better than the Xeon (since I can't find a XPS system using Xeon, so I am assuming you are configuring with the C2D)?

I said the baseline was the 8 core Xeon because you actually have to deselect an item to get to the 4 core system. I was going with "I'll take the first one listed on the Apple website" approach.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
Daemon,

Out of curiosity, why do you consider the Core2Duo chip better than the Xeon (since I can't find a XPS system using Xeon, so I am assuming you are configuring with the C2D)?

I said the baseline was the 8 core Xeon because you actually have to deselect an item to get to the 4 core system. I was going with "I'll take the first one listed on the Apple website" approach.

Actually I was not comparing a Core 2 Duo chip to the 4 core Xeon (the 8 core Xeon system you keep referencing is actually two 4 core Xeon Processors, and was not the baseline model when I went to Apple's website and chose to configure a Mac Pro, the single 2.8 Ghz 4 core Xeon was the base model offered before I made any changes to the configuration)

I chose the XPS 730, and customized the build. The CPU I chose was the Intel? Core?2 Q9550 (12MB,2.83GHz, 1333FSB) the 'Q' is for Quad, which is pretty much identical to the 4 core Xeon 2.8 Ghz at a 800FSB that Apple is offering. The difference is that the Q9550 is rated to run with faster RAM than the Xeon which is stuck at 800FSB. The other advantage is that the Q9550 doesn't need to use Full Buffered RAM, which reduces cost. The Xeon on the other hand has the advantage of being cherry picked to run at 2.8 Ghz 800FSB (better reliability) and can be used on boards supporting more than one physical CPU, which is why it can have 8 cores on the Mac Pro.

daemon:

Your job and mine are quite similar. Honestly, I'm as comfortable using XP, OS-X, Vista, Linux, and Solaris and have to jump between systems several times a day. Where things differ is the fact that the corporation I work for allows each department to pick their own preferred platform, not the bean counters. I guess they like to have happy users. Maybe it's more productive or something...

Over the last year, I've seen several of our software engineering teams switch to the Mac by their own decision... and I assure you these guys aren't concerned so much with email or web surfing! And, even more curiously, they're not writing software for the Mac... These guys are EXTREMELY computer-savy and could use anything they want, really. And people's lives literally depend on some of the products these guys write code for! They all seem to say the Mac is more efficient to work on.

About the only department that hasn't added any Macs is our accounting department. They mostly run XP Pro, because it's what they know and they're comfortable with it. But these are the same people who hate software updates of any kind, because it changes what they know... (this is the mentality I was speaking of earlier.) They'd still use DOS if their software would run on it!

Daily, I get a ton of phone calls for problems with Windows machines. Every once-in-a-while I get one for a Linux or Solaris workstation. I can't remember the last time I got a call about an OS-X machine... To me, that says something rather significant, especially considering about 50% of our computers are Macs. Maybe we're just lucky.

Quote

daemon wrote:
Actually I was not comparing a Core 2 Duo chip to the 4 core Xeon (the 8 core Xeon system you keep referencing is actually two 4 core Xeon Processors, and was not the baseline model when I went to Apple's website and chose to configure a Mac Pro, the single 2.8 Ghz 4 core Xeon was the base model offered before I made any changes to the configuration)

I chose the XPS 730, and customized the build. The CPU I chose was the Intel? Core?2 Q9550 (12MB,2.83GHz, 1333FSB) the 'Q' is for Quad, which is pretty much identical to the 4 core Xeon 2.8 Ghz at a 800FSB that Apple is offering. The difference is that the Q9550 is rated to run with faster RAM than the Xeon which is stuck at 800FSB. The other advantage is that the Q9550 doesn't need to use Full Buffered RAM, which reduces cost. The Xeon on the other hand has the advantage of being cherry picked to run at 2.8 Ghz 800FSB (better reliability) and can be used on boards supporting more than one physical CPU, which is why it can have 8 cores on the Mac Pro.

Yeah, I know it is two quad cores. It is just easier to type 8 core than "two 4 core Xeon."

Interestingly, when I go to the store and select "configure" (after selecting "Mac Pro"), it comes up with the "dual quad" selected. I'm just not changing that selection (going with the $2799 system that shows up). It is interesting that it doesn't apparently do that for you.

In any event, I see what you are saying, and it is always possible to play the configuration game. I think you'd agree, though, that doing an 8 core machine on both sites that, in that configuration, Apple actually wins (you have to do a business workstation on the Dell site to even get Xeons and 8 core machines offered). And, quite frankly, that is where Dell makes their money - on business workstations.

I guess the biggest difference is that the Mac Pros are workstation-class vice normal consumer-level. Hence the "pro" in the name. I personally like the added reliability, having had several work PCs crater at inopportune times (one coworker went through three HP laptops in the span of about 6 months. Two mobos and one HD).

Comparing Windows to a Mac is like comparing a 1975 rusty VW Kombi to a quantum-micro-laser-interdimensional-hyperspace-worm-hole-time-displacement-machine. You can use the Kombi to visit your local mall but you cannot use it it go to another galaxies or to travel in time or thru multi-dimensions.

Using windows you are a beeing from one-dimensional space. You cannot see the whole reality from there. It is like a fish on a bown that cannot see itself from outside and see it is inside a bowl. When you turn a mac on you enter on a multi-dimensional space. From that space you can see beeings on single dimensional space saying that a PC is pair with a Mac. This is because one can only see the whole truth after experiencing multidimensional reality.

Very nicely put... : )

Quote

LunarMoon wrote:
Comparing Windows to a Mac is like comparing a 1975 rusty VW Kombi to a quantum-micro-laser-interdimensional-hyperspace-worm-hole-time-displacement-machine. You can use the Kombi to visit your local mall but you cannot use it it go to another galaxies or to travel in time or thru multi-dimensions.

Using windows you are a beeing from one-dimensional space. You cannot see the whole reality from there. It is like a fish on a bown that cannot see itself from outside and see it is inside a bowl. When you turn a mac on you enter on a multi-dimensional space. From that space you can see beeings on single dimensional space saying that a PC is pair with a Mac. This is because one can only see the whole truth after experiencing multidimensional reality.

Your hyperbole while entertaining is factually flawed. A black hole is what a quantum-micro-laser-interdimensional-hyperspace-worm-hole-time-displacement-machine would actually create to do all of that, but last time I checked no one wanted to actually be that close to a black hole to experience those effects.