Wow, MS is playing all the games of a well run political campaign. I guess all is fair on Capital Hill as is in the free market economy.

Taking out the excesses of what is in the Apple offering, this is what I come up with. I bought an iMac in 2000, a mac Mini in 2003 and another Mac Mini in 2008. They are running Mac OS X 10.4, 10.4 and 10.5 respectively. The cost on the original iMac was about $2200, the MM was about $800 and another $700 for the most recent MM. I have purchased the upgrades for the OS ($129x5), Quicken (2001,2004 and 2007 $69x3), MS Office twice ($149), iWork once and iLife twice, The Omni software about twice over (Graffle, Plan, Web and Outliner ~$500) Then grand total for all of this over 9 years is about $5350 or $1700/computer. In that span of time I would have needed to purchase at least three PC computers. Two of them would be obsolete because they are unable to run the most recent OS. Instead I have three functioning machines that my wife and kids are able to use without fighting over. I have had to only reinstall the OS twice from ground up. Once when the OS9 to OS X upgrade was made final (Jaguar did away with Mac Classic I think) and another time when a disk drive crashed on the iMac (so add another $150 for the drive replacement). You still would need to pay for MS Office twice, Quicken three times so that can be subtracted from both figures. At work, I have gone through 5 PC desktop computers in that time period and 3 laptops.

iMac 1199
iLife 99
Quicken 69.95
AppleCare 249
1616.95

Microsoft leaves off the "Windows Tax." Specifically, Microsoft is failing to mention that on most PCs the price quoted offers the mid level of Vista, not the full featured version. To get the full featured version, you have to cough up a hundred and fifty dollars more.

If you take a particular PC and try to build an equivalent Mac, you'll usually end up with a more expensive Mac. This is because Apple does not address much of the market with their products. If you take the other route, starting with a Mac and finding an equivalent PC, it's much more even, and the Macs are often actually cheaper. Compare the iMac to the Dell XPS One, which is much more equivalent to an iMac than the system Microsoft shose (for one thing, it's an all-in-one), and you'll find that the iMac is slightly more expensive, but has slightly better specs.

Microsoft has left out vital upgrades that would be necessary to keep the PC up to par with the brand-new Mac in 5 years, such as CPU and RAM. 2.4GHz Core 2 Duos go for about $120-$300 on NewEgg. But then you also need to consider that new CPUs are often not compatible with 5-year-old motherboards anyway. AFAIK there are no Core 2 Duos that fit in the old Socket 478 of the Pentium 4 era. So should we include the cost of a modern motherboard as well? For that matter, should we include the cost of professional installation, since your average user would not dare to replace their own CPU, let alone thier entire motherboard?

EDIT: I was wrong, there are Core 2 Duo's that use Socket 478. PriceGrabber has some listed for around $300-$400)

I see no way to justify Microsoft's inclusion of over $1000 of Mac software and services (iLife and MobileMe) with no equivalent on the Windows side.

Every TCO analysis I've seen before has the Mac come out cheaper in the long term. Could it be that Microsoft is biased?!?

When I heard of this "Apple Tax" my first thought was, "they're right -- out of the gate you pay more for a Mac, but in my mind, you get more. It's like a luxury car. You spend more for a BMW than a Chrysler, and you get more, though not everyone *needs* more."

But when I read this, I found it ridiculous. They took that concept and over-distorted it to the point where it's simply ridiculous. The idea that upgrading your video card and Blu-ray drive is comparable to *buying a brand new computer* is insane. That's like saying re-painting your house is the same as your neighbor putting on vinyl siding. Insane.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Taking out the excesses of what is in the Apple offering, this is what I come up with. I bought an iMac in 2000, a mac Mini in 2003 and another Mac Mini in 2008. They are running Mac OS X 10.4, 10.4 and 10.5 respectively. The cost on the original iMac was about $2200, the MM was about $800 and another $700 for the most recent MM. I have purchased the upgrades for the OS ($129x5), Quicken (2001,2004 and 2007 $69x3), MS Office twice ($149), iWork once and iLife twice, The Omni software about twice over (Graffle, Plan, Web and Outliner ~$500) Then grand total for all of this over 9 years is about $5350 or $1700/computer. In that span of time I would have needed to purchase at least three PC computers. Two of them would be obsolete because they are unable to run the most recent OS. Instead I have three functioning machines that my wife and kids are able to use without fighting over. I have had to only reinstall the OS twice from ground up. Once when the OS9 to OS X upgrade was made final (Jaguar did away with Mac Classic I think) and another time when a disk drive crashed on the iMac (so add another $150 for the drive replacement). You still would need to pay for MS Office twice, Quicken three times so that can be subtracted from both figures. At work, I have gone through 5 PC desktop computers in that time period and 3 laptops.

iMac 1199
iLife 99
Quicken 69.95
AppleCare 249
1616.95

Microsoft seems to have no idea about what is going on.

A deer caught in the headlights.

Most of the switcher friends that I know (at least 5 in the last two years) all were attracted by the ease of the OS to use and the fact they were "safe" if they needed to run Windows via emulation or Bootcamp. All of them now swear by OS X, have deleted their windows partitions and have no desire to ever go back to the Windows world of bloatware and viruses.

This has got nothing to do with an "Apple Tax" and Apple's not competing on price anyway. MS needs to understand that. iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto and OS X. That's what drives Mac's appeal. It's not nearly as much about price as they would like people to believe. Many are just sick of MS's inferior and bloated products.

Having spent my life as a freelance business IT consultant, I am quite nicely paid these days. If I could have back the time I lost in making my Vista machine do what my previous XP machine did, I could have bought a whole new Mac, and a Mercedes.

In year four, the Mac user gets more than just more RAM, better video card, and bigger hard drive. They also get a faster processor, faster bus, new operating system version, and whatever other technological advances Apple and the industry makes between now and 2012. They also get a brand new computer, and there's something to be said for that.

And, shockingly, Microsoft neglected to include the price of their own system software upgrades, which run about twice the price of Mac OS X version upgrades. Granted, they didn't include upgrades in the "Apple tax," but as mentioned above, you get that upgrade in year 4, where on the PC, you're stuck with the old operating system (which, considering Microsoft, might actually be a good thing).

Why didn't Microsoft include the cost of new WIndows OS upgrades? Aside from flat out distortion, they did it because they know that market data shows most Windows users DON'T upgrade their PCs to get a new Microsoft OS, but they buy a new computer. So this invalidates they'll whole claim. True, PCs are upgradeable (but you can upgrade the RAM and even hard drive in an iMac, too, albeit not the video card), but most users don't do this.

How much would it cost to pay Microsoft to make an OS that was stable, secure, easy to use, efficient, made backup and OS recovery trivially easy for the general user and made my system faster with every upgrade?

This price will be greater than the five years of Vista development, ie $millions.

Stick THAT price in your comparison!

Quote

Guest wrote:
How much would it cost to pay Microsoft to make an OS that was stable, secure, easy to use, efficient, made backup and OS recovery trivially easy for the general user and made my system faster with every upgrade?

This price will be greater than the five years of Vista development, ie $millions.

Stick THAT price in your comparison!

http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/10/16/macbook.comparison/
Once again when you compare similar systems the Apple is in the same price range as the rest. As others have mentioned above the long term costs are not as high as MS suggests.

Quote

daemon wrote:

Actually, a computer built in 2000 that was capable of having 2 gigabytes of ram or more installed into it is completely capable of running Vista, and a single video card up-grade is all that is needed to get Aero running under Vista as well.

that Microsoft even created these charts in the first place.

Worldwide market share of operating systems is WIndows at 90% and Mac OS X at 3%.

Since when does a company with a market share ratio of 30:1 even acknowledge the existence of the tiny other party?

All this does is give credence to the idea that the companies and their products are equals. Just stupid.

You do it when everyone and their uncle is accusing you of being a Monopoly and abusing the power.

I can see it now, Bill Gates asks his board of directors "How do we convince everyone we're not a monopoly?" and Steve Ballmer responds "Step down and let me take over, I'll make sure everyone is convinced Microsoft does not have a monopoly on computers."

Quote

davebarnes wrote:
that Microsoft even created these charts in the first place.

Worldwide market share of operating systems is WIndows at 90% and Mac OS X at 3%.

Since when does a company with a market share ratio of 30:1 even acknowledge the existence of the tiny other party?

All this does is give credence to the idea that the companies and their products are equals. Just stupid.

You can't compare Apples to lemons. Just go to the Dell web site and configure a desktop system line for line to the equivalent MacPro. You will find the Mac $1000 cheaper not even including the apps that come with the Mac that you must buy for the PC. If you want to do anything at all with a PC it will cost you money to buy the capabilities that come included with a Mac.

Quote

davebarnes wrote:
Since when does a company with a market share ratio of 30:1 even acknowledge the existence of the tiny other party?

Some of those "tax" comparisons are a crock of s#!t. Family pack? How many people actually buy that, and have a need for it?? Even if I had a household full of Macs, it would make more sense to buy just one and use it on the "big daddy" computer. And the Blueray drive thing... can't say one way or another how accurate that price comparison is there... I'm not going to bother Googling it. But honestly... how many people really need something like that for their computer?

Someone else pointed out that Mac users hang on to their machines longer. The statistics are definitely out there. I would also add that Macs have a much higher resale value than PC's (just sold a four year old tower for half of what I paid for it), and the notion that Macs (except for Mac Pro) aren't upgradeable is mostly false. They aren't as upgradeable as the majority of other computers, but the reality is that with OS X's operating requirements, they don't need to be. Not sure what you can get away with in 10.5, but in the earliest days I was able to run 10.4 with just 512mb of RAM, and it ran surprisingly well.

Quote

daemon wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
How much would it cost to pay Microsoft to make an OS that was stable, secure, easy to use, efficient, made backup and OS recovery trivially easy for the general user and made my system faster with every upgrade?

This price will be greater than the five years of Vista development, ie $millions.

Stick THAT price in your comparison!

Actually, Windows XP does all this.

Vista is a bit different because it was designed to handle a great deal more resources than Windows 2000 - Windows XP could handle, with the additional resource management built in it causes system over-head greater than that found in Windows XP. OS X with 64-bit support has a similar issue with process over-head compared to OS X without 64-bit support.

Quote

davebarnes wrote:
that Microsoft even created these charts in the first place.

Worldwide market share of operating systems is WIndows at 90% and Mac OS X at 3%.

Since when does a company with a market share ratio of 30:1 even acknowledge the existence of the tiny other party?

Quote

xmattingly wrote:
Some of those "tax" comparisons are a crock of s#!t. Family pack? How many people actually buy that, and have a need for it?? Even if I had a household full of Macs, it would make more sense to buy just one and use it on the "big daddy" computer. And the Blueray drive thing... can't say one way or another how accurate that price comparison is there... I'm not going to bother Googling it. But honestly... how many people really need something like that for their computer?

Someone else pointed out that Mac users hang on to their machines longer. The statistics are definitely out there. I would also add that Macs have a much higher resale value than PC's (just sold a four year old tower for half of what I paid for it), and the notion that Macs (except for Mac Pro) aren't upgradeable is mostly false. They aren't as upgradeable as the majority of other computers, but the reality is that with OS X's operating requirements, they don't need to be. Not sure what you can get away with in 10.5, but in the earliest days I was able to run 10.4 with just 512mb of RAM, and it ran surprisingly well.

I think the comparison is accurate. In addition, they look mostly at hardware and what Apple offers. They don't go into any additional detail regarding software upgrades. As Mac users we all know that most of our software packages cost more than their Windows counterparts, and the Windows folks have more of a selection. Many people are driven by hard pricing. If this is their motivation, "features" don't matter as much. If I only have $1,200 to spend on a computer, I will want to get as many tangible things with that money as possible. There is a market for this kind of customer, and Microsoft is targeting it with these comparisons.

However, what they can't do is argue the intangibles that the Mac has to offer: user experience, stability, usability, elegance, etc. These are subjective and users of each platform embrace different aspects of their platform. Apple knows how to market these things and knows the target audience. These are the people who are less driven by price and more driven by the "features".

So I think what Microsoft presented was accurate and their target audience is clear. Is this the same target audience that Apple is courting? You'd have to ask Apple that question.

Those Microsoft supplied charts are incredibly self serving. Pretty much every ROI I've seen in the past 5 years fully discredits these charts. I'd wager the Windows fans eat this up quite willingly. Generally I end up spending the same on my Windows machines, of which I have more of than Macs. I suppose I could easily go cheaper, but when I've done that I end up with very junky and troublesome machines which I just don't have the time to mess with. As another poster commented on, I find this behaviour over a company who has a 3% worldwide share to be rather telling. (Apple's Kool Aid isn't as strong as theirs it seems) Who wants to bet there will be something similar over the next months that spotlights the various flavours of Linux. Perhaps they need to go back to the Seinfeld commercials as this type of attack is pretty glaring.

Quote

Guest wrote:
You can't compare Apples to lemons. Just go to the Dell web site and configure a desktop system line for line to the equivalent MacPro. You will find the Mac $1000 cheaper not even including the apps that come with the Mac that you must buy for the PC. If you want to do anything at all with a PC it will cost you money to buy the capabilities that come included with a Mac.

So, did Microsoft include the cost of anti-malware software and the cost of recovering from a malware infestation in their calculations?

Both are losing and hence are running negative ads!!!

How many people upgrade their systems? I am an ex-computer tech and the people I dealt with upgraded their systems ONLY when they had an actual need to do so.

Software doesn't do what you want? Buy software that does do what you want. In some cases, upgrades on software will add functionality. Some software requires an upgrade of OS or faster hardware to run it properly.

Printer died? Fix or replace, replacement may be same style or a newer style/type, depending on what they need or what the sales person sold them.

Need different type printer? (colour, laser, etc). Buy a new printer and connect it up along with the previous printer or maybe the new printer completely replaces the old.

Monitor died? Fix or replace, depending on whether it is under warranty or if it is urgently needed, in which case buying another monitor is not out of the question.

Hard drive died? If drive utilities don't fix the problem, replace, usually with a larger drive.

Hard drive full? Clean it up, reformat & reinstall the OS, programs & data or add in additional HD and make the second drive into a program drive/data drive depending on how much data is on the computer. Music and video/graphics take up lots of space.

Not enough memory to run the program? Add more memory and store/toss the old.

Computer not fast enough? More memory MAY help a computer running lots of programs or running a program that needs lots of memory to operate, but only a faster CPU or cache memory or a faster hard drive will help to speed up certain aspects of the computer, depending on what part is slow.

Everyone talks about how everything gets upgraded, but with the decreases in computer pricing, it is usually better to buy a brand new system for most people.

If they can keep certain parts/peripherals, it cuts down on their cost, but the main box/CPU is something that gets replaced or minorly upgraded.

I've heard a number of times where people will replace a Windows box/base unit with another one when it gets full/infected with spyware/viruses because it became so slow.

YMMV. People that know more about computers will try to fix, repair or replace components. People that are using the computer to do something and don't know a lot about them will look at a complete replacement solution if they don't have someone they can go to for tech support.

Reginald

MS really does think it's still 1998. Personal computers mght've upgraded when all PC's & Macs) were the equilivient in purchasing power cost of about $5,000 - no way were you going to replace an entire computer when for $400-500, you cold replace parts but now at $399+? Not really ... plus macs still retain their value much better. Good luck finding a 3-year old mac for than $800 where you don't have to read into the description. As others have noted, every year is $100 for virus protection and what MS ignores, Apple offers FREE up-to 24 hours a day WALK IN SERVICE for any mac under warranty or not. Of course, out of warranty, repairs cost but ... and note while a PC seller offers 'home" service, good luck getting them to deem your computer worthy of actually coming to your house unless your name is Gates or Ballmer.

Basically, MS is like those car ads that claim a Kia has better G-force cornering in a salom test of 65 feet with 8 cones - it is technically true but it skirts over about another 100 issues.

The majority of PC buyers buy on cost alone - to them a PC's value is ONLY judged by its price. They don't like it very much, it's useful but it's an appliance, it's like a garbage can or a lamp for the garage, its functional and it's a utility item, sure, given all things - you want a faster computer but at anything above $699, they balk and THAT IS FINE. Nothing wrong with a Kia.

That is why Apple holds 66% of the market share of $1k+ computers (NPD). And WinOS has essentially fallen from 98% to 34% in 7 years and of course and in a perverse way, MS's chart merely defends what is their market - bargain hunters. WIN OS is merely the "budget" OS you get when you are unable or unwilling to spend more than $699 on a computer - again, nothing wrong with that - just a fact of life, another reason why Mac owners happily pony up $129 for an OS upgrade while WIN's Vista upgrade % from Vista is miniscule. (aka: I'll use Vista if it's included 'free' in my computer but pay $199 to $499 - even their mojave ads prove it - the people agree that Vista is better than XP but does any of their hidden participants actually say on camera they're going to rush out to buy Vista? No. ... and sad).

Basically, this chart is Kia saying their cars are less costly than a BMW but how many BMW owners see that chart and decide a Kia is better for them? If anything, this is a bad chart for WINOS buyers because it actually points out to the bargain hunters that their $699 Pc actually costs them $1,600 a year so they will now ratchet down their budget to $299 ...

MS - clueless about consumer marketing - STILL.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I think the comparison is accurate. In addition, they look mostly at hardware and what Apple offers. They don't go into any additional detail regarding software upgrades. As Mac users we all know that most of our software packages cost more than their Windows counterparts

Quote

and the Windows folks have more of a selection.

Quote

So I think what Microsoft presented was accurate

You know, like the car ads that say "Our car beats the XXX in this area. Look!!" Luxury goods don't typically sell on their value proposition.

The bottom line is, not everyone wants to drive an appliance, even if it costs less and will get you from A to B. Some people like and appreciate the other qualities that luxury cars have, even if they cost more, even if they still perform the same basic function, transportation.

The millions of generic PCs in use are the like the rental car fleets; they serve their purpose, but given the option, people don't typically buy the same cars if they can afford something better.

About the only thing accurate is the ability to add Blu-Ray to the PC but not to the iMac, and changing the video card. Upgrading the RAM and the hard drive are both possible with the iMac.

Why are they comparing an all-in-one to a tower anyway? And why not buy Quicken for the PC, but buy if for the Mac? Oh, I forgot. It wouldn't tell the story properly.

Um.. I believe some iMacs use the Mobile PCI Express Module (MXM) for video cards, so with an adequate amount of knowledge and the apropriate bios flashes (Apple uses a non standard video card bios) you could upgrade the video card.

As far as Blu-Ray goes, they've got external drives for them same as the other compact disk types, and considering the highest data rate for video is about 48 mbits/s and USB 2.0 transfers at 480 mbits/s there isn't a bottle neck there, you could actually write a Blu-Ray disc at 12x that would take 8 minutes for single layer and 15 minutes for dual layer.

Macs really are PCs for the most part, the form factor just limits your choices which causes you to pay a premium compared to a typical tower setup.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
About the only thing accurate is the ability to add Blu-Ray to the PC but not to the iMac, and changing the video card. Upgrading the RAM and the hard drive are both possible with the iMac.

Why are they comparing an all-in-one to a tower anyway? And why not buy Quicken for the PC, but buy if for the Mac? Oh, I forgot. It wouldn't tell the story properly.

I think only the first go around with the flat panel iMacs (post snowball) had swappable video cards. Could be wrong, though.

Regarding Blu-Ray, I'm more referring to being able to watch Blu-Ray movies. Yes, you could always attach an external drive, but that won't allow you to watch movies (yet). Installing one in an iMac would only allow you to burn data (if you could find a slot loader that fits in the form factor). Since there is no way to attach to a HDMI port and no way to add a card, movies would most likely be out.

I think you mean "iMacs really are PCs for the most part, the form factor just limits your choices which causes you to pay a premium compared to a typical tower setup." Since the Mac Pro is a tower. Which is my point. They compared an all-in-one (which is almost by definition difficult to upgrade in some respects) to a tower (which is designed to be upgraded more easily, and is cheaper to build).

Overall, this is good news. Microsoft feels pressure from Apple, and I hope that will translate into a better windows product. Conversely, Apple will, at some point, feel pressure from Microsoft to bring their hardware prices closer in line with the other companies that build computers.

Having run a few mixed PC/Mac shops, with as many as 262,000 desktop computers, I can empirically state that the life cycle management cost of a Mac running OS X is between 10% and 25% of an equivalent PC. The variance in cost is based on different back end server environments. This cost is not only the acquisition, but the help desk support, installation, integration with back end systems, training, software cost, data and application compatibility (with a massive complexity in testing the interactions, aggravated by DLL hell, and registry issues), spyware, anti-virus, consistency of chipset (a PC issue with corporate imaging of consistent application/OS - a non-existent issue with Macs), etc.

Over a 3 year life span, this amounted to a typical savings of around $12,000 per desktop - not an inconsequential figure. If you keep a machine for, say, 5 years, it is even higher.

The selection of Mac software may be more limited, but virtually every functional capability is covered, and with very consistent, high quality applications, that reduce training, and work well.

The biggest, nastiest cost, however, is not in any of these areas, but in the data lock in of using software the stores data in proprietary formats. Microsoft has well understood this since the beginning, creating proprietary formats for virtually ALL their applications, even bastardizing industry standards (Kerberos comes to mind, or the proprietary IMAP format used for Exchange calendaring, or the proprietary implementation of XML in Office data formats, to say nothing of the various proprietary server functions, like ActiveX, that lock you in to Microsoft). This intentional act of holding your corporate data hostage to a single vendor solutions is, arguably, their most cowardly ploy to maintain platform dominance.

There are few, if any, Apple applications that locks you in. Each either saves in public data formats, or provides export capabilities to these formats.

If Microsoft had to compete on capability and features, and not data lock in, their dominance would evaporate quickly.

We've already discussed the Mac Pro, as I've pointed out it is an uncompetitive product not meant for consumers, and it is quite possible to build a cheaper, faster, alternative to the Mac Pro that has acceptable failure rates for the hardware.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
I think only the first go around with the flat panel iMacs (post snowball) had swappable video cards. Could be wrong, though.

Regarding Blu-Ray, I'm more referring to being able to watch Blu-Ray movies. Yes, you could always attach an external drive, but that won't allow you to watch movies (yet). Installing one in an iMac would only allow you to burn data (if you could find a slot loader that fits in the form factor). Since there is no way to attach to a HDMI port and no way to add a card, movies would most likely be out.

I think you mean "iMacs really are PCs for the most part, the form factor just limits your choices which causes you to pay a premium compared to a typical tower setup." Since the Mac Pro is a tower. Which is my point. They compared an all-in-one (which is almost by definition difficult to upgrade in some respects) to a tower (which is designed to be upgraded more easily, and is cheaper to build).

Your operating budget per year was over $1,048,000,000?

Because when you take 262,000 desktops and multiply the average cost per year of each destkop's operating budget by $4,000 (1/3 of $12,000) you get over a billion. Just what IT department has a billion dollar operating budget overseen by one guy?

Quote

Guest wrote:
Having run a few mixed PC/Mac shops, with as many as 262,000 desktop computers, I can empirically state that the life cycle management cost of a Mac running OS X is between 10% and 25% of an equivalent PC. The variance in cost is based on different back end server environments. This cost is not only the acquisition, but the help desk support, installation, integration with back end systems, training, software cost, data and application compatibility (with a massive complexity in testing the interactions, aggravated by DLL hell, and registry issues), spyware, anti-virus, consistency of chipset (a PC issue with corporate imaging of consistent application/OS - a non-existent issue with Macs), etc.

Over a 3 year life span, this amounted to a typical savings of around $12,000 per desktop - not an inconsequential figure. If you keep a machine for, say, 5 years, it is even higher.

The selection of Mac software may be more limited, but virtually every functional capability is covered, and with very consistent, high quality applications, that reduce training, and work well.

The biggest, nastiest cost, however, is not in any of these areas, but in the data lock in of using software the stores data in proprietary formats. Microsoft has well understood this since the beginning, creating proprietary formats for virtually ALL their applications, even bastardizing industry standards (Kerberos comes to mind, or the proprietary IMAP format used for Exchange calendaring, or the proprietary implementation of XML in Office data formats, to say nothing of the various proprietary server functions, like ActiveX, that lock you in to Microsoft). This intentional act of holding your corporate data hostage to a single vendor solutions is, arguably, their most cowardly ploy to maintain platform dominance.

There are few, if any, Apple applications that locks you in. Each either saves in public data formats, or provides export capabilities to these formats.

If Microsoft had to compete on capability and features, and not data lock in, their dominance would evaporate quickly.

But you missed the point. They are comparing two completely different machines - an all-in-one to a tower. If they even compared the lowest end model of the Mac Pro, the difference wouldn't be as great as what they showed. They are gaming the numbers. Folks call Apple on that all the time. Who is going to call Microsoft on it now?

And the Mac Pro is a competitive product in the market towards which it is aimed. It is not an "enthusiast" machine. It is designed as a workstation for folks that want/need a lot of processor power. As you said before, you can't make an 8-core machine with C2D or C2DE. There are folks that need the cores (those who do a lot of simulation work, for instance). If I had the budget, I'd replace the nearly 100 G5 and early XEON Xserves I currently have at work with 100 8-core Xserves. It would greatly increase our throughput, while maintaining the same footprint. (I'm not going to get into a discussion of Xserves vs other servers. We have them for a reason.)

EDIT: A more appropriate comparison would have been the Dell XPS One all-in-one. That is more like the iMac than what they selected. Then run the comparison.

Quote

daemon wrote:
We've already discussed the Mac Pro, as I've pointed out it is an uncompetitive product not meant for consumers, and it is quite possible to build a cheaper, faster, alternative to the Mac Pro that has acceptable failure rates for the hardware.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
I think only the first go around with the flat panel iMacs (post snowball) had swappable video cards. Could be wrong, though.

Regarding Blu-Ray, I'm more referring to being able to watch Blu-Ray movies. Yes, you could always attach an external drive, but that won't allow you to watch movies (yet). Installing one in an iMac would only allow you to burn data (if you could find a slot loader that fits in the form factor). Since there is no way to attach to a HDMI port and no way to add a card, movies would most likely be out.

I think you mean "iMacs really are PCs for the most part, the form factor just limits your choices which causes you to pay a premium compared to a typical tower setup." Since the Mac Pro is a tower. Which is my point. They compared an all-in-one (which is almost by definition difficult to upgrade in some respects) to a tower (which is designed to be upgraded more easily, and is cheaper to build).

I am still using my 2001 800MHZ iBook. Apple actually replaced the logic board for me for free a few months ago. I also am still using my older Dual 450 MHZ G4 Tower. The older Tower certainly feels sluggish for some things. However, the iBook is still perfectly usable for most people's needs (e.g. word processing, email).

Quote

randompro42 wrote:


i just nabbed a macbook pro (finally replacing my 800 MHz iBook) and plan on that lasting me 6-7 years

I seriously differ with their choice of buying iLife 3 times.

How many of us Mac Users will do either of these things:

-- Buy 3 iLife upgrades? One upgrade maybe, but most people stick with what's on their computer because it's what they are comfortable with. They've got us buying Quicken one time, why would we buy iLife 3 MORE times? (since it is already installed when we get the iMac)
-- Buy one to One care? (whatever that is)
--Buy a new iMac after only 3 years? Come on! Macs are VERY usable for at least 5 years.

Just a few cents from below zero in Fairbanks

So the only software that a PC user ever buys is MicroSoft OneCare Live!, which as it turns out is virus protection software for $49 per year. That is one piece of software that the Macintosh users don't need, so that would be $245 advantage for the Macintosh.

The Macintosh user apparently cannot live without MobileMe, and it has to be the family pack. Why count a family pack for a single computer? That is nonsense. And MobileMe is a combination of several services that most people can happily live without, so we can remove that $750 expense from the Mac side. And that Mac user most be an obsessive iLife upgrader, spending $300 for iLife upgrades (again, three family packs). So what about the PC user? Either the user needs software like iLife, then it needs to be counted on the PC side, or they don't need it, then take it away on the Mac side. Same with Quicken. And why would the Macintosh user buy FileMaker for $299 instead of Bento for $29?

The last straw is the Mac user buying a new iMac, while the PC user upgrades. Guess what an iMac user does if they want a 1 TB hard drive: Order one at the cheapest online store, take out your trusted screw driver, put it into the Mac. Guess what an iMac user does if they want 4 GB RAM: Order one at the cheapest online store, take the screw driver, put it in the Mac. In my experience, Mac users are a lot more tech savvy than PC users who have trouble understanding more than a price tag, so Mac users are actually much more likely to upgrade.

Granted, spec-wise you might be able to match the Mac Pro for cheaper, but when you need rock-solid mission-critical reliabilty, the Mac pro is unbeatable for the money.

As you already know, Mac users generally tend to be more prone to using a computer for creative purposes than gaming anyway. That's the crux of the big misconceptions about the Macintosh... Just because it's x86 hardware doesn't make it the same platform as the typical white-box PC. It inherently has a different value-base to its hardcore users and is looked at differently. (Typically, the only emotions I have for my PC are hatred and anger... but my Mac is almost like a "friend" or something. I know I'm not alone... And I'm generally platform-agnostic!!!)

I still use my G4 AGP from 1999, and upgraded the CPU, bought cheap RAM and a bigger HD, I did upgrade the OS once, but otherwise, I don't even bother upgrading the OS. I don't use MobileMe or quicken.
I guess MS didn't add in MS Office and it's up0grades, adding $300 to $1000 depending on the version, just for one copy and one upgrade!!!
But we cannot deny the MacBookPro price is costly. I configured a 17 in HP with the same components of the base model MBP and it was about $1,000 less. Also, iMac must be compared to a similar All-in-One computer, not a tower. Iknow guys that bought it for the form factor, onlt to run Windows as they did not want a tower under the desk, or wires.

I do have 10.5 running on my 12"PB (wish Apple would make this size again) 1.5 GHZ, with 1.25 gigs of RAM, which is now going on three years old. It runs perfectly.

There's one major thing I haven't seen pointed out yet (my apologies if someone or a bunch have pointed this out already. MS missed that, at the end of the 5 years, the mac person still has a 2 year old iMac, which will have >50% of its original value at that point. The PC person has an upgraded 5 year old machine, worth what? Certainly a lot less than half the purchase price plus the price of upgrades. There's a bit of a price there.

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the true apple tax is switching to Mac OSX. I have a PC that I built with specs that are more than sufficient to run OSX but I can't buy a copy and install it on my machine. Instead I'm expected to buy a whole new Apple computer when all I need is the OS.

A lot of people make the luxury car analogy, and I'd like to add to that.

Apple products aren't just a premium brand in terms of style.

A company once gave me a rental Mercedes. Nice badge - I thought. But it's when you slam on the brakes at 150 mph on the autobahn that you realize how far down that quality goes.

Same with the Mac: no-viruses, super-easy OS re-install, Time Machine, ...