-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Apple: Cool costs $$$
- Thread starter Kaido
- Start date
There's definitely an Apple image tax, but it's not such a simple dichotomy as both sides are making it out to be. Apple isn't the best at any price, nor is the MS-ran commodity PC necessarily the best value.
With something like a Macbook, you do overpay for the specs, even taking into account the quality, coolness of the design, and the OS. It's just that commodity builders like Dell, Lenovo, and HP aren't putting anything comparable in play. It's moreso that you have to overpay a little if you want a solid aluminum case than it is an Apple tax -- it's just that Apple is the only company bringing that style to market. It's unfair to fingerpoint and say "you're overcharging" when they're the only game in town unless you want a parts bin laptop.
The reason why Apple charges what it can and maintains the margins that it does is that no one competes directly with them, and its not because of OS licensing. The average idiot doesn't care about OSX vs Vista, they're shopping on aesthetics and a high quality build, Apple gives them that. I don't think anyone in their right mind can argue that the OS is that big of a differentiator, but you'd have to be a moron to say that there isn't any difference in the physical build, even if the specs match on paper.
That's why I finally bought a Macbook. I wanted a metal laptop somewhere in the consumer electronics price range, and the older style MBPs still felt a little too flimsy for me. Although I will admit to one side effect that I didn't anticipate -- OSX is way better on battery life. As a result, I rarely boot Vista, even though I am just as productive on it.
If MS wants to make this an "overpaying for cool" issue, it's implicitly wanting to sell more of its OS. We all know MS doesn't care what the laptop looks like or costs, as long as it runs windows. Maybe they ought to contract out a design that isn't cheap plastic parts, and they might shift more units.
With something like a Macbook, you do overpay for the specs, even taking into account the quality, coolness of the design, and the OS. It's just that commodity builders like Dell, Lenovo, and HP aren't putting anything comparable in play. It's moreso that you have to overpay a little if you want a solid aluminum case than it is an Apple tax -- it's just that Apple is the only company bringing that style to market. It's unfair to fingerpoint and say "you're overcharging" when they're the only game in town unless you want a parts bin laptop.
The reason why Apple charges what it can and maintains the margins that it does is that no one competes directly with them, and its not because of OS licensing. The average idiot doesn't care about OSX vs Vista, they're shopping on aesthetics and a high quality build, Apple gives them that. I don't think anyone in their right mind can argue that the OS is that big of a differentiator, but you'd have to be a moron to say that there isn't any difference in the physical build, even if the specs match on paper.
That's why I finally bought a Macbook. I wanted a metal laptop somewhere in the consumer electronics price range, and the older style MBPs still felt a little too flimsy for me. Although I will admit to one side effect that I didn't anticipate -- OSX is way better on battery life. As a result, I rarely boot Vista, even though I am just as productive on it.
If MS wants to make this an "overpaying for cool" issue, it's implicitly wanting to sell more of its OS. We all know MS doesn't care what the laptop looks like or costs, as long as it runs windows. Maybe they ought to contract out a design that isn't cheap plastic parts, and they might shift more units.
I found these commercials to be quite comical, but in all truths they are correct. You can't get a good deal on an Apple.
While PC is cheaper and more abundant, the form and function of Apple still remains supreme. However with the form and the function of Apple comes at a price of upgrading and repairing. With a PC laptop the repairs and upgrades are generally cheaper, also the software is generally cheaper than that of Apple products. Apple attacks this issue by cutting upgrades using the inclusion of unique and ground breaking technology and creature comforts. They exploited Windows by creating software to allow Windows to be used simultaneously with OSX. This is another reason they are ahead of the curve, since they don't allow peoples to use their Operating System without heavy modification or drastic hacking unlike Windows which is pretty much universal now-a-days. This might also be their downfall seeing that the majority of computers (business & home) are Windows.
I have to admit, I love my new MacBook and it performs flawlessly; no lockups, crashes, 5+ hours of battery life with wifi and word documents opened. But in reality, here at school 90% of the machines are Windows, 5% Apple, and the rest servers running an assortment of Operating Systems. All of my teachers are used to using Windows and they don't want to change their methods.
Apples media involvement may be the only reason they stay afloat, alongside with the monopoly they have on the music industry with their iPods. While I believe that they are inventive and very futuristic, someday they're going to have to conform; whether that is 5 years to 80 years down the line I do not know. But unless the business world and the home world start buying only Apple, I don't see them lasting.
While PC is cheaper and more abundant, the form and function of Apple still remains supreme. However with the form and the function of Apple comes at a price of upgrading and repairing. With a PC laptop the repairs and upgrades are generally cheaper, also the software is generally cheaper than that of Apple products. Apple attacks this issue by cutting upgrades using the inclusion of unique and ground breaking technology and creature comforts. They exploited Windows by creating software to allow Windows to be used simultaneously with OSX. This is another reason they are ahead of the curve, since they don't allow peoples to use their Operating System without heavy modification or drastic hacking unlike Windows which is pretty much universal now-a-days. This might also be their downfall seeing that the majority of computers (business & home) are Windows.
I have to admit, I love my new MacBook and it performs flawlessly; no lockups, crashes, 5+ hours of battery life with wifi and word documents opened. But in reality, here at school 90% of the machines are Windows, 5% Apple, and the rest servers running an assortment of Operating Systems. All of my teachers are used to using Windows and they don't want to change their methods.
Apples media involvement may be the only reason they stay afloat, alongside with the monopoly they have on the music industry with their iPods. While I believe that they are inventive and very futuristic, someday they're going to have to conform; whether that is 5 years to 80 years down the line I do not know. But unless the business world and the home world start buying only Apple, I don't see them lasting.
hans030390
Diamond Member
15 minutes using Leopard made me miss Windows 7.
KeithP
Diamond Member
Let me rephrase, "A PC is a bargain as long as you can get one that does exactly what you want" Apple spokesman Bill Evans said. I mean, that is essentially what he said right? 🙂
I currently don't own a Windows machine. I use a 2.2Ghz MacBook at home and love it. I have been using it for over a year but lately I have been craving more power. Something for games, design, print and photo work (not necessarily in that order of importance).
For about $2700 I can get a quad core Mac Pro w/4870 and 3GB RAM. For just under $1400, I can get a Dell with a core 2 quad (2.8Ghz, 1333 FSB, 12MB cache) with 8 GB of RAM, a 4870 512MB video card and 3 years of in home warranty service.
Sure the Mac Pro is a different animal when it comes to hardware but therein lies the problem. I don't need that animal. I need something closer to the Dell. The Mini is completely out of the question and I want a much higher quality display than the iMac comes with not to mention the limitations of expandability with the iMac form factor.
Sure OS X is better than Vista, but for what I need it really doesn't matter. I am equally comfortable using and supporting both. The iLife suite is a non-issue, I will be using the Adobe Creative Suite.
I would buy an Apple machine over any Windows box as long as my needs happen to coincide with what Apple offers. Unfortunately they offer so little in the way of selection and customization that those paths don't cross often. They did last year when I bought my MacBook, this year, not so much.
The upside with the Dell is that it is so much cheaper than a Mac Pro I will be able to keep my MacBook. With the Mac Pro, I would have to sell it.
-KeithP
To KeithP:
I was a little skeptical of Hackintoshes before I got mine up and running with iPC. It is very solid and with the exception of Netflix streaming it runs like a champ. You might want to consider that route unless you are reticent to build your own computer (which I can understand) in which case... sure get the Dell. There is nothing intrinsically holy about using OS X on your primary machine, and in my opinion it particularly shines on a portable anyway.
I was a little skeptical of Hackintoshes before I got mine up and running with iPC. It is very solid and with the exception of Netflix streaming it runs like a champ. You might want to consider that route unless you are reticent to build your own computer (which I can understand) in which case... sure get the Dell. There is nothing intrinsically holy about using OS X on your primary machine, and in my opinion it particularly shines on a portable anyway.
Zaap
Diamond Member
You're a perfect candidate for Hackintosh if ever there was one. I'm posting this from my main sig machine, and it cost me less than $1200 and performs as good as the single quad Xeon MacPro that I use at work. Check out Kaido's Hackintosh thread and build guides before you pull the trigger on the Dell. Look at it this way: you'll not only get a PC running Vista the same as the Dell, you get a Mac that outpaces anything from Apple except the best MacPro, too.
KeithP
Diamond Member
I may indeed go with a Hackintosh. I have built about a dozen Windows boxes over the years and never had a problem. I didn't mention that option because of the point I was trying to make. Although in the example I mention a 4870 512MB card, I was hoping to go with at a 1GB card or preferably a 4890. When I get ready to buy in 2-4 weeks, I will see where Hackintosh support is for these cards and then make a final decision.
-KeithP
See.. I know people say that OS X isn't a reason to pay the premium for a Mac, but that's the main reason why I pay a premium for a Mac. I love OS X and it almost hurts to go back to Windows. Windows 7 makes it a little bit easier, but I still can't stand Windows. It just feels more fluid for me to use OS X. Therefore, I will Buy/Hack/Steal my way to being able to use OS X. Well, not steal.. heh..
Only because there pool of PC users is 10 times the size of the Mac users.
This would also be a good place to start on Mac security/Issues
http://antivirus.about.com/od/...ac_Virus_Resources.htm
mmntech
Lifer
I bought my first Mac for battery life. Back in 2005 when I wanted a laptop for university, hardly any PC systems offered more than 4hrs. That just wasn't enough to last through the day. Then there was the shiny iBook G4 that offered 6hr, and actually lasted that long! Now I'm on my second. I'm working on my professional broadcast journalism certificate right now and a Mac is pretty much necessary since everybody in the industry uses Final Cut Pro these days. Sheridan College use it (North America's top animation school), Everybody Hates Chris uses it, 20th Century FOX uses it, South Park Studios has a huge Mac rendering farm. The first CGI movies were all done on Mac, most notably Toy Story. Multimedia is where Apple has always excelled. Windows has taken over with CGI, mostly IMO because of the faster GPUs available. Editing is all done on OS X though. Use Windows and you just end up paying the Adobe Tax.
With Mac, you're not paying for the hardware itself but for the user experience. It really does cater to a different sort of user than Microsoft does. Windows was originally, and largely still is, a business OS. That's what Microsoft is best at, which is why they really bungled things with Vista. The high upgrade costs and the stupid five tiered version system soured a lot of their core market off Vista. You'd be surprised at how many offices still use pre-Pentium IV workstations. Windows 7 is better than Vista but it still doesn't address this problem.
With Mac, you're not paying for the hardware itself but for the user experience. It really does cater to a different sort of user than Microsoft does. Windows was originally, and largely still is, a business OS. That's what Microsoft is best at, which is why they really bungled things with Vista. The high upgrade costs and the stupid five tiered version system soured a lot of their core market off Vista. You'd be surprised at how many offices still use pre-Pentium IV workstations. Windows 7 is better than Vista but it still doesn't address this problem.
Hacp
Lifer
I don't know about that. With vista, everything just works. I tried a mac and got lost right away. With vista, if I wanted to install a printer, I just google the drivers and thats it! With a mac, I couldn't find any drivers for my printer after an hour of searching. Turns out macs didn't support my printer -_-.
Happens with games too. With vista, I just download DirectX and install the game. Runs pretty smooth after. With Macs, I tried to install a game and it turns out Macs aren't supported. You need to buy Vista and Bootcamp and go through a tedious installation process and lose HD space just to play the game! I didn't even bother with it after, because I found out that the graphics on the Black Macbook didn't even support the game.
I just feel that windows is more customizable. If you know what you're doing, you won't get lost.
umrigar
Platinum Member
I still maintain that the first person to code a Mac virus that can be spread WITHOUT the use of an administrator password (like MOST WINDOWS Trojans) can brag that he compromised the Mac's secure OS.
Until then, it's FUD.
Not one single Mac Trojan/Virus has been shown to spread. NOT ONE, in all the years OS X has been out.
Not to say we Mac users should be complacent... but you simply cannot compare Windows to OSX, in terms of safe internet usage.
- Mac: out of the box, you can surf safely, email etc.
- Windows: honestly... TRULY honestly... how many of you Windows users surf the 'net with NO protection? How many packages do you install before you even connect your Winbox to the interwebs? BE HONEST. then add to that the AVERAGE PC buyer (whom those commercials are targeted at) - do they know what they need to install before using it?
I would just like an honest comparison. Battery life, as has been said, is very different between Mac & PC laptops. In some cases, VASTLY different, like 2.5 hours vs. 5.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
