SuperSite Blog

Mac fanboys (and I am one of them) like to respond to price criticisms by updating good-enough-for-me PC configuration to match Mac's nearly-fully-loaded configuration. For instance, adding stuff most PC users don't care for, such as web cam, Vista Ultimate Edition, and Bluetooth, just to bring PC price closer to that of comparable Mac.

I am always suspicious about these low cost PC stories.  My best friend went off to a computer warehouse for a basic laptop.  The salesman put him off a Mac by saying 'They are expensive and only for graphic artists" .  He walked out with a £649 ($1300) Vista laptop with £100 ($200) of absolutely necessary accessories.  My MacBook cost me £440 ($880).

I was on the point of buying a Dell preloaded with Ubuntu when I saw the MacBook on sale.  Once I had specced up the Dell it was far more expensive than the MacBook.

Do you really get that much better hardware for $1000? A couple months ago I bought a Lenovo IdeaPad Y510 with a 1.6 ghz Core Duo, 3 gigs of ram, 250 gig hdd, DVD DL Burner, and Vista Home Premium for $530 (and integrated web cam with face recognition, nutmac). Excellent computer. In fact it's the best computer that I have ever owned and the cheapest computer that I have ever bought. Highly recommend it. I'm sure it would have no problem whatsoever running OSX (if that were possible). There has been several times when I have at the same time ran Windows Media Encoder (converting videos), VirtualBox running Ubuntu, IE7, Zune, and Windows Live Mail without even the hint of a hiccup. For me personally (and I do much more taxing things with my computer than the average Joe), my $530 computer is much more than I need for anything. That's why most people can't justify paying $1500 for a Mac.

File this under "D'uh". Apple has always milked the moron tax on its users and the iTards are oblivious.

LMFAO@ at all the anecdotal BS stories that will ensue of how Dells/HP's etc etc are equal or more expensive when they shopping.

I just bought this for my Niece over the weekend. Mind you its the premium line for Dell and the Inspirons were cheaper. Its not even close really with all the deals Dell HP and the rest run weekly.

Dell XPS M1330, Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T5550, 1.83GHz, 13.3" WXGA, 4GB RAM, 320GB, CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW Drive),  802.11 a/b/g/n, Bluetooth, 2.0 Megapixel Integrated Webcam, Biometric Fingerprint Reader, McAfee SecurityCenter 15-months, Windows Vista™ Home Premium, 1Yr In-Home Service, 3GB Online Backup for 1Year » for $1003.20  at Dell.com

Paul, I don't think your headline is wrong... but its not very useful analysis.  Dig in a bit, deeper here, as you're a marketshare-as-insteresting guy.

If Apple has 66% of the higher-end computer retail market, and is growing 45%+ year-over-year, while the Windows desktop market is DOWN 25%... that's very interesting.  Apple's gains in higher-ed are massive too.

That means that Apple dominates the main area of sales growth in retail PCs for consumers and small businesses.

Now, why does this matter?  Because the people buying $500 PCs aren't buying as much software as those buying $1000 PCs.  If you're a software developer targeting the consumer, this is important stuff.  Consumer software firms ignoring the Mac are ignoring a very sizable chunk of potential sales.  This is why Mac third party support has been going like gang-busters for the past three years and why WWDC is sold out a month in advance for the first time ever.

That's all important stuff for the platform.   And it's interesting to imagine what the next few rounds of growth will bring (as college students with Macs graduate and request them at work, or start businesses of their own).

Good times for computing competition.

But I guess on the most simplistic level, it does show that Apple's average selling price is much higher than the PC market.  That's a problem I think HP and Dell would love to have.

Peace.

As somebody who uses both Macs and PCs I would have to agree that PCs are cheaper, even with similar specs as a Mac.  I recently bought a new iMac (October 2007) and my dad bought a new Dell not that long after.  Both computers have about the same specs but the Dell was about $200 cheaper.

The one thing many Mac enthusiasts will point out is that the Mac will have a much higher resale value and taking that into consideration the Mac will come out with the advantage.  However, MOST people do not resale their old computers so I don't think that this argument is as relevant as it would seem.

@matt.brown,

I don't think the hardware between a Mac and a PC is really all that different. After all, external design aside, the innards of a Mac are very similar to that of a PC, Intel processors and all.

I think the price difference is about software more that anything else. With all of the Macs I've purchased, even the older ones dating back to the late 90's, it came with the software needed to do most of the day to day stuff I needed right out of the box. With a PC, I'm not sure that's the case, but I base my opinion mainly on the one PC I occasionally use at work, so I could be wrong. Right out of the box the PC didn't really have anything I could use to catalog my images, music or sound effects, let alone do so in as unified as manner as Apple's iLife apps (I'm an illustrator and an animator by the way). I would have had to purchase competitive apps separately, but since I've got two Macs as my main workstations, there wasn't a need for it. Of course, neither machine comes with the higher end tools I need like Photoshop or Cinema 4D, so I guess they're kinda equal in that respect.

That PC was definitely cheaper, but not nearly as useful. The only reason  we bought it was for a piece of software from UPS that we use to take orders for some of our artwork.

Of course, this may have all changed with Vista. Maybe it does come with some really good apps built in for that sort of thing, but our company won't let us use it until they feel confident enough about it.

So anyway, that's my two cents.

Peace.

Weedmonk,

It's not as if Dell and HP and the rest don't sell machines over $1000 at stores.  It's just that most people making that large of investment in their computer have done enough research to make a smarter choice.  Hence 66% of them buy Macs.  If you just want some cheapo thing to read the web, who cares.

What's funny, is that mac bashers have alway called out the platform for not having games.  Yet gaming machines are ALWAY the highest-end thing on the market.  And yet, here we are, with Apple utterly dominating the high end.  

Funny.

I think PC's are indeed cheaper.....all out!!  Here's why -- If I buy a $1200 Dell desktop and a $1200 iMac, when I want to upgrade some of the guts of the PC, I don't have to go spend another $1200 on an upgraded iMac if all I wanted was a new $500 graphics card....and that shiny new soundcard...or whatever.

Over the longrun, PC's are waaaay cheaper.  I still like my MBP, but my wallet says over time my PC is cheaper.

Makes sense... Last year I bought a 17" Toshiba 2GB ram, 1.9ghz Core Duo, Vista Premium, built in 1.3MP web cam, 10-key, wireless b/g/n for $850. Even after taxes and extended warrenty it was under $1,000...

Last month I bought this:

configure.us.dell.com/.../config.aspx

Lets see... that's a 2.4Ghz QUAD Core!! 3GB of DDR2 ram @800MHz, 500GB hard drive, upgraded to premium wireless mouse/keyboard, 8USB ports, Firewire, 19 in 1 media card reader, Wireless N, preloaded with Adobe Photoshop Elements 6 and Premiere 4 for................. $808. Yup, that's it! I went to do a comparison with a Mac Pro and the best (and fairest) configuration I could come to brought the Mac Pro to over $3,000. If you're wondering about the monitor, I just migrated over my 22" ViewSonic from my older computer (something you can't do with iMac's).

The fact that you can get a 500GB HD, 2.4Ghz Quad Core, 3GB RAM computer for $499 (see link above) speaks volumes about Apple's over-pricing.

Sooo... anyone into computers enough to buy a quality machine, 2/3rds of the time get a mac?  Is that what the data implies?

Soo... anyone that isn't buying a junky computer that will be obsolete in 2 years, 2/3rds of the time get a mac?  Is that what the data implies?

Paul, as a self proclaimed 'computer guy', when's the last time you bought a laptop or desktop with a screen for less than $1000?  Usually people who use computers as serious tools spend between $1000 and $2000 on their machines so that they will last a while and do the work well.

Apple is changing the way people think about comptuers... they're no longer junker commodity items with identical software, gray boxes, and malware vulnerabilities... now they're a way to talk to relatives hundreds of miles away (easily and quickly), music/photo/video organizing and sharing tools, which are fun to use and try new things on.  In addition to hardware that looks beautiful enough to put in the living room.

You can't claim that with any $500 PC, that's for sure.  I'm glad to see people actually caring about their computers, and excited about using them for once... not geeks mind you, but real people.  Teachers, carpenters, retired grandmas, etc.  It's amazing to see how excited they are about computing for the first time ever and not just buying the cheapest piece of trash they can to get on the internet and collect viruses for the next 4 months until their computer grinds to a hault.

@fivepoint:

"You can't claim that with any $500 PC, that's for sure."

See my post above. I guess since you can get it for $499 and not $500 you are technically correct ;)

Weedmonk:

"Dell XPS M1330, Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T5550, 1.83GHz, 13.3" WXGA, 4GB RAM, 320GB, CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW Drive),  802.11 a/b/g/n, Bluetooth, 2.0 Megapixel Integrated Webcam, Biometric Fingerprint Reader, McAfee SecurityCenter 15-months, Windows Vista™ Home Premium, 1Yr In-Home Service, 3GB Online Backup for 1Year » for $1003.20  at Dell.com "

For the same cost, you can get a macbook, with a 2.1Ghz Core 2 Duo processor.  You can add third party RAM for $50 or so, and you've got a far superior (in my opinion) machine with Mac OSX, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, Garageband, etc.  

Also, it's virus free, doesn't come with any bloatware, and comes with the best customer service and support of all hardware vendors... hands down.  (actual americans on the phone helping you)

It's just like the iPhone vs a blackberry.

They cost identical amounts new, but you can get better deals on the blackberry.  You can sometimes even get them for 75% off... and the blackberry might even have a few more features.

But guess what... there isn't a sane logical person in the world that would day the blackberry is a better machine than the iPhone.  The iPhone has fewer features perhaps (iPhone: 3G, Mac: finger print recognition) but the features it has are actually done well (iPhone: Google Maps, Mac:  Virus protection, photos, video, expose')

So yeah, keep getting your discounted blackberrys and bottom-o'-the-barrel Dells, and I'll be living the high-life with my $400 iPhone and $1000 Macbook with a faster processor than yours.

fivepoint:

In case you haven't heard, OS X is less secure than either Windows Vista or XP. With Vista you have Windows Defender. I use my computers worry free and have never had a virus. I've had a number of friends with Macbooks, Macbook Pros and iBook's that have been hacked however.

Your comparison to the XPS isn't even close! Vista doesn't need as much processing power as does OS X, so a 2.1 might actually seem slower on a Macbook running OS X than an XPS running Vista at 1.83. Can you get 4GB of ram, 320GB hard drive with all the other stuff he mention AND "in home service"? (i.e. no phone necessary).

Also, iLife doesn't quite compare to things like Windows Movie Maker (not that I need it now that I have Premiere, see post above), Live Photo Gallery, Windows DVD Maker (perhaps not as good as iDVD, but a minor app at that) and the plethora of other apps you get for free. You want to compare Safari to IE? iChat to... every messenger available for PC's?

I'll give you Garageband and iDVD, but I'm sorry, we gotcha with Photo Gallery, Movie Maker, IE and the entire messenger arena.

Obviously you've never used a high end Blackberry. The Blackberry is an awesome device... so is the iPhone. What does this have to do with either?

Your Macbook's highest available processor is still only HALF what my processor on my Dell is. You need to do some research on Quad Core processors. The only Mac that supports it are the Mac Pros. Not Macbooks, not Macbook Pros, not iMac's and certainly not the Air or Mini.

@Cfischer83:

"In case you haven't heard, OS X is less secure than either Windows Vista or XP. With Vista you have Windows Defender. I use my computers worry free and have never had a virus. I've had a number of friends with Macbooks, Macbook Pros and iBook's that have been hacked however."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH,..... LOL.... HAHAHAHa... oh, you can't possibly be serious!

"Vista doesn't need as much processing power as does OS X"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH,..... LOL.... HAHAHAHa... oh, you can't possibly be serious!

"Also, iLife doesn't quite compare to things like Windows Movie Maker"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH,..... LOL.... HAHAHAHa... oh, you can't possibly be serious!

I HONESTLY do not know how to respond to your post.  It's full of OBVIOUS falicies and lies.  These are proven areas where macs and Mac OSX are superior... Windows Movie Maker? Give me a break!  Windows more secure than OSX?  Give me a break!  I honestly can't even explain how someone like you could be alive and kicking, actually following the tech industry, and have the viewpoints that you have.  Absolutely amazing!

All the commodity fanboys give examples of sale items and compare Apple computers at list.  Who pays list?  Almost everybody on the planet qualifies for the Apple 15% Higher Ed discount.  My Mac Pro came in at 27% under list and I will probably still be using it in 7 years.

Only a fool and his money are easily separated.

"Your macbook's highest available processor is still only HALF what my processor on my Dell is."

Right... because quad-core means twice as fast at the same ghz, right?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH,..... LOL.... HAHAHAHa... oh, you can't possibly be serious!

I'm sure the 3.06Ghz iMac isn't nearly as fast as your quad-core machine.  Without a doubt.  ;)

Usually it takes 5 posts before the troll "comes out" of the mac user in unintelligible garble, but you did it in 4... nice job!

I obviously can't reply to "HAHAHA" or to "I HONESTLY do not know how to respond to your post" (I must have wowed you), so I'll do my best to help you understand...

Vulnerability. Who had the most in Q1 2008?

blogs.csoonline.com/which_desktop_os_had_the_most_vulns_in_q1_2008

How about the first 6 months of an OSes release?

blogs.csoonline.com/windows_vista_6_month_vulnerability_report

How about the whole year?

blogs.csoonline.com/windows_vista_one_year_vulnerability_report

Pwn to Own. Mac hacked in two minutes:

blogs.zdnet.com/security

Paypal urges users not to use Safari:

digg.com/.../Don_t_use_Safari_Paypal_Said

"Right... because quad-core means twice as fast at the same ghz, right?"

I never said twice as FAST. Read it again, I said it's TWICE the processor you can get on a Macbook. In case you didn't know, Quad cores from last year are actually two Duo Cores welded together. In this case I've got two of the highest core processors the Macbook can carry, and the Macbook can only carry one! So 1+1 = 2, that's twice the processor.

and FYI, in case you think I don't know what I'm talking about, I do use a Mac Pro everyday. It has two 2.66ghz processors and it is NO WHERE near as fast as my Dell.

"I'm sure the 3.06Ghz iMac isn't nearly as fast as your quad-core machine.  Without a doubt.  ;)"

Well... considering I have a Quad and the iMac is only a mobile Duo Core, I wouldn't be surprised, however, like I said, I only have a Mac Pro to compare.... I wonder if my Dell's faster than the Air? Hmm....

Keep on drinkin' that Kool Aid!

@dougxd.

What is this, 1996?  Gutting your PC to replace components like video cards and soundcards is so utterly obsolete.  FIrst of all, as a percentage of the overall market, fewer people upgrade their video cards than buy macs I would bet.  Just look at how few people upgrade Windows.  Essentially nobody.  Most Windows licenses are sold with new PCs.

Second... just sell your old computer and buy a new one!  What a terrible waste of good hardware to pull out old gear and chuck it in the trash.  As a former PC builder, I know for a fact that the only time it really makes sense to do an upgrade more extensive than ram and harddrive is after a full generation of tech has been released.  That means new video card, new motherboard with new chipset and prcoessor, probably newer ram.  That's a new computer.  To ruin your perfectly usable machine just to save the case is ludicrous, anti-environmental and out-dated.  Hell, give it to the poor.

I had a G5 tower since 2003.  Pushed up its ram and drives.  May have cost me $3500 overall.  Kept it til 2007 and sold it on ebay for $2000.  Now, instead of some dead heap of parts, it's still getting used and I put the proceeds to a new 8-core mac pro.  Many mac users do this.  Just check out ebay.

Then there's the whole real issue: people are moving to laptops.  Desktop sales overall are in major industry wide decline to the tune of 20% year-over-year (minus Apple a few others who are growing).  Laptops aren't upgradeable so this whole argument is irrelevant.

@Paul

You're right that most home PC users tend to buy cheaper machines than Apple makes available.

@weedmonk

Wow - that was a really heavy rant to go on and then turn around and buy a machine that's pretty close to a MacBook in specs and price.  If you like the Dell, more power to you, but it really isn't much cheaper than an equivalent Apple laptop.

@fischer

You can post all of the links you want about 'potential vulnerabilities' because all I care about are real world attacks.  

FACT:  There are THOUSANDS and MILLIONS of XP owners (Microsoft's most used OS) who have suffered through viruses/trojans/etc... and how many for Macs?  ZERO!!!!

Potential vulnerabilities are different than exploited ones... Troll.  Your attempt to state that Microsoft security is superior to Mac's is laughable.

Now, because you are entertaining me, I would LOVE to hear your reasoning why MovieMaker is better than iMovie... Hahhahaha!

I'm not sure I take away the same conclusion as you do Paul.  I agree this report says a lot about the PC market.  But I think that it's saying that the low end market is profitably unsustainable.

First of all, Troll? Really? Do you know what that even is? At least I'm giving logical, fact-based information in a respectful way. You're making outrageous claims in all CAPS with nonsense replies, all while trying to belittle me. Who's the troll?

Yes, thousands and even millions of people who own XP have viruses, I'm not disputing that. Even some Vista users out there (all 150,000,000 of them) have viruses, but to suggest that not one Mac has a virus? That's just plain ignorance. In case you haven't seen, there's a new virus everyday for the Mac (although most news sources will always start by saying it's the "first" but that's just poor journalism). Take, for example, this Trojan blogs.zdnet.com/security

You are also under the impression that "security" means viruses, viruses and only viruses. You're forgetting that most security issues involve getting past your password (e.g. phishing), loop holes in common protocols that are the same across all platforms, and encryption. Suppose you leave your "superior" macbook out and someone steals it? Guess what, they can recover passwords to things like your bank account, credit cards or anything thanks to this security glitch: www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9881870-7.html ... now suppose that I leave my Vista Ultimate laptop sitting out and it gets stolen.... what's that? The thief can't extract my password from the ram? Oh that's ok, he'll just take out the hard drive and find it... oh wait, bitlocker? The entire hard drive is encrypted.... hmm... Mr. Thief is going to have to go look for another Macbook to steal.

Sorry to tell you this but Mac's can get viruses, do get viruses and viruses are not the biggest problem on the computer anymore anyway. After all, with one sweep of my computer my anti-virus software kills anything that may be there, so what's the difference? Viruses can be  undone, stolen info and passwords cannot.

Windows Movie Maker... well, a time line is sure nice for one.... hmm... faster importing, better HD support, and MS actually makes each version BETTER rather than worse.

@cfisher38

You don't give any details about that super fast Dell that's faster than your Mac Pro.  You also don't say what applications you're using to make the comparison.

Any system can be brought to its knees.

What details do you want? I thought I gave plenty.

Dell: 2.4ghz Quad Core, 3GB Ram

Mac: Two 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duos, 6GB Ram (OS X Tiger).

I am using virtually the same apps on both.

Mac: Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Word, Excel, iTunes, iPhoto, YummyFTP, Fireworks, Flash and Adium as my Messenger.

Dell: Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, IE7, Safari, Opera, Word, Excel, iTunes, SmartFTP, Fireworks, Flash, Zune, Premiere, Live Photo Gallery and Trillian as my messenger.

At any point, many of these apps will be absent from my process list so I know it is not any one app slowing my Mac down. Even if it was, my Mac's not slow just not as fast as my Dell.

WOW! Look at all the activity here..

makes me want to throw eggs! ;-)

Before the Mac fanboys get too carried away with the 66% figure, which I'm sure you will, that figure is the retail share of computers sold in brick-and-mortar stores.  Of course the headline wouldn't have the same oomph if that was mentioned in the mast head, so you get a statement that needs to be clarified later.  Now I don't don't doubt that Apple has grown tremendously, but let's look at this without fruity colored glasses.  Up until very recently, Dell was sold almost exclusively through Dell.com, and HP does plenty of their business online too.  Take in to account that the general brick-and-mortar general computer store is somewhat dying, with the death of CompUSA.  The Wal-Mart's of the world certainly don't sell expensive computers, nor do they really sell expensive anything for that matter.  So having Apple with it's shiny stores selling high-end goods and getting a big piece of the pie is not surprising.  However, I'd like to see the overall consumer market, not just brick-and-mortar.

"Troll.  Your attempt to state that Microsoft security is superior to Mac's is laughable."

You looking in the mirror or trying to state a fact?  It is quite laughable that you would treat security in such a black and white manner, when you really have no data to back up your claims, except what you feel is true.  The ZERO figure that point out is a little hard to quantify, since your mothership has sold you a computer that they state is incapable of getting malware, which means that the general populace of Mac users doesn't have any anti-malware software.  A dangerous spot to be in for sure.

"If Apple has 66% of the higher-end computer retail market, and is growing 45%+ year-over-year, while the Windows desktop market is DOWN 25%"

John, where are you getting these figures?  The figures that I can find don't really support this and see way overly optimistic and hyperbolic.

From IDC's figures which Paul had reported on last month:

www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp

These were the figures that showed 25% growth for Apple, and 15% growth for Dell for first quarter 2008, just for comparison.  Actual unit growth for Apple was 191 thousand, and was 667 thousand for Dell.  And as I mentioned in that same article, the percentage growth for Apple was certainly great, but the actual unit growth does not meet up, and is certainly less.

This regularly updated article also provides some insight:

en.wikipedia.org/.../Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems

All of these figures don't align with the Fortune article, which makes believe that the retail brick-and-mortar sales are relatively a drop in the bucket of the greater computer market.

Yep, you're all correct. But I just reinstalled XP SP2  and then SP3 after reformatting my hard drive and I am still getting errors. Of course, having seen over a thousand viruses, crippling Malware and Trojan Horses on several friends Windows machines, and not one on a Mac [my Macs have never been hacked, but neither have my PC's], I beg to differ about security. Also, the winner[s] of CanSecWest admitted that they setup the website to take advantage of a pre-choosen vulnerability, spending two weeks setting it up [but i do not know if it was during their spare time, but they admitted to two weeks], I would say that it did not take a couple minutes, especially since they had to have direct access to the computer and were unable to break in over the network. If they were in my house, it would not be my computer that I would be worried about. Now I am in to my 4th hour to to reinstall XP. After SP3, it fails to DL and install any updates. Yep, saving $200 to work hours in frustration is REALLY worth it!

JohnPapola-

Usually you make sense (while being at the opposite end of spectrum from me in your opinions, being a macboy and all - but that's all fine, who expects you guys to approach computing with reason anyway... ;) but this particular argument of yours is just plain idiotic:

"What's funny, is that mac bashers have alway called out the platform for not having games.  Yet gaming machines are ALWAY the highest-end thing on the market.  And yet, here we are, with Apple utterly dominating the high end.  

Funny"

That is almost like a lot of the politics nowadays - just because now there is Al Qaeda in Iraq people say that we went there to fight terrorism.  

NOBODY buys Macs to game; and guess what - you couldn't really game on a Mac.  At best, your argument shows that Mac crowd is not that bright, because, after all, they use it for consumer / productivity apps, which much cheaper PCs can accomplish just as well (I know you will scream No here, but whatever).  

The gamers Will spend on the highend, but the gamers are a niche and never dominated the market in the first place.

DRWAM:

I'm betting that most your friends are Windows users, and I'll be they are on XP. I'll also bet that most to stories you speak of were pre SP2.

Going back to my point above, security isn't just about viruses. Although viruses will aways be with us, they aren't the issue they once were thanks to SP2 for XP and the whole architecture of Vista.

I on the other hand would rather have a more secure and reliable Vista PC than my Mac that has crashed over and over and over again...

My friends all had XP SP2 and kids, but I have had no crashes with my Macs and lots of problems with XP [plug and don't play]. I am using Vista without problems, but only a little, but I do like it. But you know what Cfisher83? If I cannot fix XP after another SP3 install, I am just going to try to install Vista on it and hope that it works. That's a good idea, so thanks, because I have better things to do than play with this PC.  I guess that I better read the minimum requirements. Thanks for the idea.

BTW, if you're talkin' an $800 difference, then hell yeah I would buy the PC as an average user, maybe even $500, because they really do the same thing for an average user [Leopard and Vista]. Wish me luck. If you think that you see a shooting star tonight, bet that's it's my PC flying out the window [I'm an ex-shot putter too]

@Cfischer83

How is it even fair to compare Vista performance with Tiger, which came out back in 2005? That's just silly. That's like when the hardcore Mac fanboys who would say Tiger was faster than Windows XP which was four years old at the time.

Fresh install Leopard then we'll see which OS outperforms one another. In my experience with both Vista and Leopard is they're both equal. I've had no problems with Leopard compared to Tiger which was just a nightmare that I'm glad to be over with.

I have had no problems with Tiger either. Leopard even runs fast on a 1999 G4 Tower with a 1.25GHz CPU upgrade. Of course all my XP plug and play problems were before SP2, and XP does run the world, especially the medical 'cloud'. You would all be dead without it. The people at this site seems to have a problem with XP and Leopard. XP has been a workhorse for years, and keeps on going. I like them all.

Now my install problem. I uninstalled SP 3. I think that I was missing Windows installer 3.1, but it looks like I may have gotten a fix.

@Paul how you read into that article that Mac's are more expensive????  Then again you would not be you with out bashing Apple.

@cfischer

Windows does not ship with anything compared to iLife 08.  

Movie maker is a joke.  I used if for years when I had XP because I did not want to spend money on something better like Sony Vegas or whatever.  

When I got my first Vista notebook last year I bought a new video camera and retired my digital 8mm after many years.  Anyhow I got a Sony camera with a 40gig drive and low and behold Vista/Movie Maker 6 (what happened to 3, 4, & 5?) in all of its new shiny gui, love fest could not read the HD on the camera.  Plugged it into my Macbook and Leopard/iMovie started dumping the video into iMovie.....cuz it just works.  

Oh and you just got to love that coster or um DVD maker that ships with "some" versions of Vista, its almost as bad as the Zune 1.0 software, but better than WHS:)

You got PC lovers here with their stories of getting Dell super cheap with a coupon code they got of some site, combined with a xmas or back to school sell/corporate discount/mothers day/take you kid to school day sale, comparing them to the highest price Apple they can find.  New Flash you can buy Mac's on sale....go to Amazon during a holiday, Macbooks are usually the #1 seller during the holidays, or get a student discount from someone you know.

Here is a comparison (not winsupersite comparison) from 1 year ago....

www.systemshootouts.org/.../0515_lt1100.html

Every Dell I see that is 3 or more years old always looks like a used Frisbee.....not so for Macs.

DRWAM, I don't know what to tell you about SP3, but upgrading to Vista is probably the best thing to do if your PC can handle it.

$800 difference? My Dell at $800 compares to an OVER $3,000 Mac Pro. That's almost $2,500 I saved by not getting a Mac. I can also get a laptop for about $1,000 that compares to the Macbook Pro that is $3,000. You know what kind of PC laptop you can get for $3,000? PhantomX - Quad core, up to 8GB of ram, two high end graphics cards, 750GB HD, 17" 1920x1200 resolution.

@SacredCow:

I don't understand your reasoning... Older software should run faster on new hardware than new software does... So Tiger should run faster than Vista, but it doesn't.

@Lindy

Vista Movie Maker is head & shoulders above XP movie maker. I don't know why you couldn't import your video but I'm betting it was probably a One-D-Ten-T problem ;)

Who said anything about coupons, specials or any of that? Did you not read anything I posted? Did you not see the link that takes you directly to Dell's website where you can get 2.4ghz Quad Core, 3GB Ram, 500GB HD for $499? Apparently not.

Once again you totally missed the point. Of course you can always FIND PC's that are as expensive as Mac's... why would anyone go searching for a MORE expensive PC? The point is that you CAN find PC's that blow equivalent Mac's out of the water at price. Can you show me a quad core Mac under a grand? Under two grand? Can't find any at Apple.com. Can't find any at Amazon. Can't find any on Ebay. Can't find any on Craigslist.

Windows Movie Maker cant read the any of the native Hard drive formats, with out adding third party software.  Hard Drive based camcorders are rapidly replacing tape based cameras, and Vista cant support them out of the box.

I see your Dell Quad core.  Yes its pretty dam cheap I will give you that.  Looks nice a cheap as well, but that does not matter all that much for most people.  You cant even begin to compare it to the Mac Pro they are two different classes of computers.  

The Dell is a desktop computer with a only single socket, max 2.6ghz stock 2.4ghz, ships with integrated graphics, limited disk options and is Fugly:)  Oh and it comes with Vista....hail Mary full of grace.....

The Mac Pro is a serious workstation/work group server.  It has two sockets and the default is dual 2.8ghz quad Xeons with options up to 3.2ghz all .45nm Harpertown vs the 2.4ghz .65nm for the Dell.  It had a RAID card option, SATA or SAS drives, up to 32gig of Memory, dedicated video card.  It comes with Leopard with an option for Leopard server.  The computer its self is a work of art, again that does not matter to most.  Yes its $2300 for low end option, 2.8ghz, 320gig drive, 2gig of RAM and a dedicated video card.

Two differen class computers.  The Mac Pro is comparable to a high end XPS desktop, some of which are over 4K.

Besides who the heck uses desktop computers anymore?  The only desktop I have in my house is an old Dell desktop I bought from my company for $50.  It works like a champ with 256megs of memory as a FreeNAS server:)

There are so many problems with the above post I don't know how to cover them all... and since it's late and I've spent all day debunking Apple Crap (Crapple) I'll make it short.

Mac Pro is NOT a serious work group server. Tried using it as a server at work and was the biggest pain in the butt! It was the second Mac Pro I had to reinstall the OS on. I had an easier time using a 512mb ram, Pentium 4 PC running Windows 2000 as a server than I did the MP.

The Mac Pro is certainly a high end workstation (although not the highest), the point I keep trying to prove OVER AND OVER is that the two desktops do overlap in configurations, and the Dell comes out on top by a long shot, and there are NO other Mac's out there that can compare to this Dell.

Who uses desktops? Um... half the world, that's who O_o

@Cfischer83

My reasoning is fine because I can vouch personally that Leopard performs better than Tiger on Intel hardware. See, I can be like you. I can make claims and have nothing to back them up other than my own personal experience. You make a claim, present it as fact. I can do the same.

You're debunking hasn't done anything but waste your time. Is this what you do with your free time or are you wasting your companies money?

The arguing all seems a little silly.  Yet again everyone's arguing about the big things - performance, security, stability etc - things that are actualyl hard to measure because their relevance is dependant on the situation of use.

It's the little things that can make all the difference between a dissapointing computing experieince, and a satisfying one, and that's all going to depend on what you actually want and expect out of your computer.

I use Vista all day at work, and have a Dell Vista Laptop at home, but I also have a fairly new iMac on my desk at home, which is the computer I use most of the time when I'm there - I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to the average home user, because it's frankly more likely to deliver the computing experience they expect - if it costs more, I'd say it's worth the money.

First of all, this whole thread is so typical.  Are macs generally more expensive than PCs on average?  Of course!  Are they fairly competitive (though still marginally more expensive) than comparably equipped PCs... clearly.  Should this be the sole basis for your purchasing decision?

Only if you're an ignorant cheapskate.

As for midrange towers vs. the Mac pro... not reasonable.  The Mac Pro is a workstation.  It's got Dual quad core Xeons and is clearly targeted at professionals.  Comparing it to anything other than a Dell precision workstation, or HP workstation or Boxx machine is dishonest and/or ignorant.

Apple doesn't make a standard mini-tower.  It's a hole in their lineup.  But given their growth rate in desktops and the decline of desktop sales overall, there's clearly little reason for them to appeal to this niche.

Apple's growing a very healthy rate and it's not because there's a rapidly growing population of morons on the earth.  It's because the Mac has genuine value over Windows PCs for many users.  It's not the end-all-be-all for everyone, but only arrogant dorks will try to marginalize the Mac's value just because they can spec out a system that's a few hundred bucks cheaper.  That's just dork nonsense.

Regarding security, any smart Mac users should be very careful about touting security as a key feature.  Vista has improved things on Windows to the point where there is pretty much parity.  OSX may at this point be technically less secure since Apple doesn't have the resources Microsoft has to pour over their code line by line.

In practice, the Mac is a very hack/virus free experience... for now.  So let's just drop it until something meaningful changes (and no, pwn2own is not meaningful).

Fivepoint,

with all due respect, the crazy text laughing isn't helping you or the mac pov out.

Cfischer,

I don't know about Vista's media tools, but Paul has always reviewed iLife as being DRAMATICALLY superior to anything on the Windows platform.  I'll take Paul's word since he is mr. winsupersite and his reviews tend to be pretty fair.  Given that, I'm going to guess that your slam against iLife has to do with standard PC-user spec sheet reading and not actual use of the applications.

Dpsht,

"John, where are you getting these figures?  The figures that I can find don't really support this and see way overly optimistic and hyperbolic."

I'm pulling them directly from the article Paul is linking to here (which I emailed him yesterday morning).  

IDC's numbers are wrong.  Plain and simple. Apple's Q108 numbers directly from them show 44% y-o-y growth in units.  That's the real number for Apple's computer growth and it's pretty massive in the context of the overall PC market (roughly three times faster).

ibarsky,

I'm glad you think I'm usually reasonable, but that makes your direct insults all the weirder.  I'm not claiming people buy macs for games.  Obviously they don't.  What I'm saying is simple.  PC users bash the mac for being expensive, then (typically) they turn around point to games as a major missing element for the platform.  There's clear and obvious hypocrisy in those arguments because gaming PCs are very expensive, with graphics cards that exceed the average selling price of PC desktops.

"John, where are you getting these figures?  The figures that I can find don't really support this and see way overly optimistic and hyperbolic."

Agreed.  My point was simply about the hypocritical anti-mac argument that's always dominated the web.  Of course, gaming belongs on consoles now with a shrinking niche of kids PC gaming, so it matters less than ever.

As for your bizarre political analogy... stick to tech comments, political commentary is clearly not your strong suit.

@cfischer

Apple supports their server OS on their server line and the Mac Pro.  Install it on anything else and they wont support it.

If you load up that Mac Pro with two Quad 3.2ghz Xeons (8cores) and 32gigs of RAM , 10.5.2 server OS it could easily server up 5 - 200 people as a small company/work group server (file, print, directory, web, email, ical...etc).  I have seen SBS2003 run on 1/4 the hardware and serve up 70 people.  

Fully loaded the Mac Pro would make a pretty amazing web or db server, they do make Oracle for OS X server.  Maybe with you it was a pebkac, and that is why you had problems.

The Mac Pro uses the Xeon quad cores and ECC-FB-DIMMS only found in high end workstations and servers.  Your Dell uses desktop parts.  

The only Dell that is comparable to the Mac Pro is the Precision T7400 workstation and if you configure it the same as the Mac Pro default, (dual 2.8ghz quad core Xeons with 2gig of FB-DIMMS) its MORE EXPENSIVE than the Mac Pro by over $1000.  The Dell comes with a cheap 19inch monitor and a smaller HD (250gig vs 320gig) but I guess they got to make you feel good for that extra grand.

configure.us.dell.com/.../config.aspx

vs

store.apple.com/.../BizCustom

I know FACTS suck.

Oh and notebooks have been out selling desktops for a few years now.  I can google some stats for you if you would like?

The thing that Cfischer83 seems to not grasp is this:

Anecdotal "evidence" is not data.... Let that sink in and repeat until it becomes clear.

They are your personal experiences, not some cognitive dissonance that  Mac users experience, because I'm willing to bet that the vast majorities experience is not your experience.

The price subterfuge is always and interesting one. The claims of a Mac always underperforming against a "comparable" Dell (whatever the hell that is) are exercising in partisan "I want my side to win, so I change the parameters to my team wins". Really? Are you thinking we wouldn't notice this?

No different from Paul in his anti-Apple rants to be quite honest. He is qualified to speak about Microsoft; wholly unqualified to speak about anything Apple, until some proper journalistic neutrality is attained.

Sad thing is that Paul is well thought out most of the time, but his bias, his thinly veiled vitriol, his clumsy "I actually like Apple" disguise (Sorry Paul, not buying that bridge) against anything Aple makes his posts worth the electrons this post is residing on, in other words no much.

So Cfischer83 continue at the feet of your Jedi Master, so far I'm still waiting for a point from you that is anything more the fanboyism (read: anyone who throws out the label of "Crapple" ) is a Fanyboy.

"At best, your argument shows that Mac crowd is not that bright, because, after all, they use it for consumer / productivity apps, which much cheaper PCs can accomplish just as well"

Consumer indeed, professional NO. Color management under Windows is still too unreliable for professional productions and pro video and audio apps mostly aren't there.

"Apple has always milked the moron tax on its users and the iTards are oblivious."

"it's late and I've spent all day debunking Apple Crap (Crapple)"

"your argument shows that Mac crowd is not that bright"

So much for rational discourse.

ibarsky,

I mis-pasted your quote.  I meant to quote this:

" The gamers Will spend on the highend, but the gamers are a niche and never dominated the market in the first place."

To which my reply was this:

Agreed.  My point was simply about the hypocritical anti-mac argument that's always dominated the web.  Of course, gaming belongs on consoles now with a shrinking niche of kids PC gaming, so it matters less than ever.

"IDC's numbers are wrong.  Plain and simple. Apple's Q108 numbers directly from them show 44% y-o-y growth in units"

OK, even if we take this 44% figure at face value, it still doesn't compute if you will.  Unit growth would still be lower than what Dell added during the same period making the figures your originally pointed out difficult to believe.

Dipsht,

Let's discuss. So, my point is never that Apple is "taking over" or that they're going to dominate.  My point is simply that Apple does incredibly well in the markets they choose to compete in.  That means consumers, content pros, education, small business (to a lesser extend) and a host of other niches like Life Sciences.

Is dell still shipping way more units, and growing by a larger number of units in absolute terms?  Yes.  But dell addresses corporate enterprises that buy in large quantities at razor-thin margins.  Those machines will never see the light of day with regards to the software developers I care about.  They're gonna run office and some internal vertical apps... and that's it.

What this all boils down to is a simple point.

Partisan mac-bashers and hacks like Waethorn and some of the others in this thread like to point to Apple's worldwide share as some sort of "proof" that "Macs suck".  I think it's pretty clear that, based on Apple's performance in the market segments it competes in, they clearly don't suck.  They're actually quite dominant.

Taking a industry as enormous and diverse as the computer business and making qualitative judgements from blunt raw numbers like worldwide share is ridiculous and frankly dishonest.  I'm not saying you do this, but clearly it's a common dork retort.  "ha, snort, well macs have 3% marketshare, so THERE".  GIve me a break.

A computer used to run an auto factory robot is so fundamentally different in use than one used by a consumer that they don't relate in any way.

Does this make sense to you?  Do you understand where I'm coming from here?

Ok, I'm going to prove all the Mac fanboy's wrong here for probably the umpteenth time:

This is what Apple sells:

MacBook Pro 15" 2.5GHz base w/ the following:

2.5GHz Core 2 Duo processor (I'm making a guess here, but I would imagine these are Penryn T9300's - somebody prove me wrong)

4GB DDR2-667 Dual-Channel RAM

200GB SATA 7200RPM Hard Drive

15" Glossy 1440x900 LCD (no charge extra for glossy - whatever)

USB modem (mine includes a modem, so I'm trying to be fair here)

3 Year AppleCare warranty

rest of the stuff is stock  (DVDRW, webcam, GF 8600GT 512MB, BT, 802.11n, 2xUSB, etc.)

On the Apple Canada webstore they sell for a whopping:  $3307!!  (LOL!)

Ok, and this is a very similar system that I sell:

Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 2.5GHz procssor

4GB DDR2-667 Dual-Channel RAM

200GB SATA 7200RPM Hard Drive w/ 1GB Intel Turbomemory Cache

DVDRW Dual-Layer Burner

GF 8600M GT 512MB

15" 1680x1050 Glossy LCD

2.0Mp webcam

Fingerprint reader

Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR

Firewire

ExpressCard 54

4x USB 2.0 ports

SVideo-out, VGA-out

USB charging capability for peripherals

No-latch "mag-seal" screen

Card reader

Intel 4965AGN

Gigabit Ethernet

v92 Modem

Vista Ultimate x64 SP1

Windows Live OneCare included

Notebook bag included

3 Year Warranty + Support

$1799.99 (Canadian dollars too)

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you can justify an extra $1500 expenditure for buying from Apple in that case - that's nearly DOUBLE!!!  For anyone with a system like that, they could easily get a legit copy of Adobe Creative Suite for that kind of extra money!

Oh, and I forgot to mention that mine's certified as "Centrino Mobile Technology".  Macs aren't.  Hell, Apple doesn't even list the proper Intel processor model numbers.

Sacred Cow:

If you bothered to look at anything I've posted, you'd see that I have more than just "anecdotal" stories. The evidence is quite clear.

blogs.zdnet.com/Ou

JohnPapola:

You obviously haven't read a lot of Paul's reviews then. He has said that in his opinion, the two are a draw: www.winsupersite.com/.../winvista_ff_wmm6.asp

This is very typical. Mac users can't win an argument so they change the subject or attack someone. Well I'm not going to let it happen. Lets STAY on topic, shall we? The purpose of this whole blog (all 65 words of it) was that you CAN find equivalent PC's that are far less expensive than Mac's with the same specs. That's the point, point proven, end of story. Good night!

"A computer used to run an auto factory robot is so fundamentally different in use than one used by a consumer that they don't relate in any way."

OK, and do you think that this is primarily where all of those Windows licenses are being sold?  Do those constitute such a large amount of the market?  Given Windows Vista's newness and higher processor needs, I don't think that any of the 140 million licenses sold are on any of those computers, and neither are many of them being sold to business in high volumes yet.  Everyone here always points to Windows being pre-installed.

"Does this make sense to you?  Do you understand where I'm coming from here?"

Yes it does, and yes I do.  However, being hyperbolic about numbers, which from your silence you are admitting that your previous numbers were wrong (prove me wrong, I'm a grownup, I can handle it), and trying to use that hyperbole to prove your point, or the point of the article is wrong and doesn't help your position.

"with regards to the software developers I care about"

Ahh, but does someone care about them?  I certainly do, and in fact, I care about them more than I care about software that I can run at home.  This has been an area that we have not seen eye to eye on, which is fine.  However, you and many others seem to insist that the Mac way is the only way.  This is not true.

"Taking a industry as enormous and diverse as the computer business and making qualitative judgements from blunt raw numbers like worldwide share is ridiculous and frankly dishonest."

I'm sure your (and others) reaction would be quite different if we were talking about the iPod, or if Apple had some decent worldwide numbers.  Typically I see kind of reaction to market share numbers because they don't help your cause.  However, when they do, ie, this article, quoting market share numbers are suddenly OK.  

John, you are very well reasoned, but you do occasionally throw out these very hyperbolic statements, and that is when I chime in.  In my eyes, they don't help the argument.

@Cfischer,

I love how you point to a review that's now two years old in which Paul's final conclusion is that Windows Movie Maker 6 is a draw with iMovie.  

"Is WMM 6 still superior to iMovie? In the years since WMM 2 first shipped, Apple has improved iMovie dramatically and the latest version at the time of this writing, iMovie HD 6, offers stunning integration with the other iLife applications, nice themes, effects, titles, and transitions, and has finally caught up with some WMM functionality. Apple was also an early mover to HD technologies, and iMovie's support of HD movies seems more polished than what we see in WMM 6. That said, it's basically a draw: iMovie by itself isn't enough to make any home movie makers switch to the Mac, and WMM 6 is certainly a capable enough solution that can handle any home user's needs." - paul

Hey, it may very well be superior.  I wouldn't know.  I use Final Cut Pro.

As for "changing the subject" or "attacking".  What are you talking about?  My whole post is about Mac market share and it's value proposition, which is the issue at hand here... not Windows Movie Maker.  And I don't recall attacking you, just suggesting that you don't have working experience with iLife.  Spec-sheet comparisons of software aren't a good basis for discussion.  Real use is.

@Waethorn,

Great for you.  You must be saving a ton of money by strictly advertising your business in blog comments.  I love how you marginalize the value of software like iLife and OSX, but herald BS marketing stickers like "Centrino Mobile Technology" and processor numbers as important features like anyone cares or should care.  Talk about drinking the coolaid.  Just get a MS/Intel tattoo across your forehead and be done with it.

Form factor matters too, you know.  The backlit keyboard is a great feature.  Having DVI out that support the 30" display instead of garbage long-outdated VGA is much better.  The magnetic power connector is another killer feature.  Firewire 800 is a must for me.  Then, of course, there's the software.  I save more than $1500 right off the bat with Final Cut Studio 2 over Avid on a PC.  Logic Studio for $499 is the audio deal of the century.

Comparing a brand vendor like Apple to a tiny white-box OEM like you isn't reasonable.  Comparisons to Dell and HP are much more useful.

But in fairness to you, that's quite a machine for that price.  No question.

Dpsht,

"OK, and do you think that this is primarily where all of those Windows licenses are being sold?"

No, I think most are being sold to the channel (not yet sold through to end users) and to consumers and small businesses.  My point is remains the same though.  There are thousands of Windows desktops here at Viacom. &n