SuperSite Blog

Frankly I never liked Windows on various Toshibas and Dells I have had, but for the last few months I have been running Windows XP on my Mac Pro and MacBook and have had very few problems at all and have grown to like Windows far more than I ever thought.  It has changed the way I think about the OS totally.

Perhaps the problems all along were the cr*p hardware and not Windows.

I can see why you like your MacBook for Vista.

I may well give Vista a try soon.

I agree that in many areas PC vendors have come way down in the last 6 months, but then again its "the back to school sales".  Comparing these sales to Apple prices which never come down to my knowledge is not a great comparison.  

Also the economy is really bad and these vendors are trying to move as much as they can which is their business model, more than its Apples.

If I go to Dell right now and configure a D630 notebook for the same specs as Pauls Black Macbook, I quickly getup to $1232

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

The MacBook or MacBook pro are two very capable Windows Vista machines (I don't know why you would still want to run XP unless you haven't been able to tweak Vista yet for your gaming or something), maybe even the most capable Windows machines as Avro alludes to.  I have had 4 PCs running Vista in the last year: 1 Dell, 1 Lenovo, 2 Acer.  All of them except for the Dell crapped out on me (I just sold the Dell because it was too big).  So what do I run Windows on now?  A MacBook of course and this thing is a work horse.  I have had literally zero problems in the 6ish months I have had it.

Granted, however, this is a 1000+ laptop like all Macs are.  So was the Dell (1500+ actually) that I said had no problems.  The vendors have to be saving money somehow to be able to sell a Vista laptop for under $700.  I think compromises made to produce a computer at that price point is the culprit in most cases.  Like SnakeDoctor1 said, the economy is at the point right now that PC makers have had to get the price to this ASP sweet spot, but at what cost?  Go and buy a nice Dell, Mac, or Sony computer for over $1000 and, at least in my experience, you wont have many hardware issues at all.  

I realize that not everyone is going to have the resources to spend over a grand on a computer, and thats fine.  I am just saying that in my experience you have to spend that much to assure the quality of the hardware wont effect your experience on the machine and that  have had little luck with the PCs I bought for under $700.

Excuses start flying. The bottom line is that Macs are more expensive. I wouldn't say twice as expensive (although there are times when it can happen for the budget minded), but more expensive.

The main point here is that when Paul defends Apple (here he notes that he prefers the Apple hardware, and doesn't think its 2x the price) the Apple crowd forgets quickly, but, come the next post, where he hits it hard, they quickly attack him. That is why he calls it the iCabal right?

Good, honest commentary, Paul. IT is true, that a MBP costs more than a "more feature rich" commodity laptop from HP...but you get what you pay for. I have been running Vista on a MBP for over a month now...no problems. The laptop is much more sturdy than the several that I have used in the past...including my work Lenovo.

--tayme

Hey, I posted this twice last week. The similar equiped 17 in HP [$2K] with a entry level stock 17 in MBP at [$3K], with adding DVD software to the HP and Vista 64 bit. I was conguring it for my nephew [he has had it for a week and tells me it's lightning fast], and wanted to see if the MBP would cost similar since he would be able to run Vista and Leopard. But the cost difference was even greater as I found a $500 off coupon. So, my comment is..'first'.

In my experience, in the last few years the pricing problem with Apple products has not been that they were wildly overpriced, it's been that with the tiny number of configuration choices you ended up paying for a vast array of items you wouldn't have chosen if you were picking out a PC.

If an Apple configuration was precisely what you needed, it had been only a little more expensive. Of course, for most people that exact configuration wasn't ideal so you'd have to move up-model to get the one missing feature and buy half a dozen items you didn't want so you could get the one you did.

Apparently, even that's no longer the case. I wonder how much of that change is due to:

The horribly weak US Dollar impacting Apple's Mac products since they sell primarily to the US

versus

Subsidising the massive Apple advertising budget

versus

Apple deciding their target market wasn't that sensitive to price since they wouldn't buy anything else no matter how much they were charged.

The bottom line is there defenatly is a place in the world for these cheap laptops and in there place they are fine, we recently bought my wife a £350 HP laptop, the specs seemed good, dual core AMD processor, 2gb of ram, 120gb hard drive built in WiFi, now I know that all of these components are not quality components, but all she wants is to read her emails surf the web a bit a store photos on it.  She doesnt travel with it so weight wasnt really an issue.  other friends of my Wife have similar laptops to be used for similar work loads.

I'd like anyone to point out in that situation why we should have spent £800 on a macbook to run windows on. The HP will last for year, and yes maybe with better quality memory it might run faster, but as it is outlook/IE/Photoshop Elements open and run fine.

On the other hand I use my laptop a lot it does travel with me and i wanted a more quality machine, I did spend the £800 on a MacBook.

One last point I would like to know just what Brandon uses his laptop for that he manged to break 3 in a year!

Dog Bites Man but the MacBoi onslaught will be priceless. Just brace yourself with insufferable bevy of anecdotal stories saying otherwise. Heck snake already did it except he had to go through SMB channel and config a business specific system that's has isn't eligible for one of 100's of Dell consumer specials.

Quick looks at todays Studio Deal....

Dell Studio 15, Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T5750, 2.00GHz, 15.4" WXGA, 3GB RAM, 320GB, 8X Slot Load CD / DVD Burner (Dual Layer DVD+/-R Drive), 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450, Integrated 2.0M Pixel Webcam, HDMI, 802.11b/g, Bluetooth, Integrated Finger Print Reader, Back-lit Keyboard, Windows Vista™ Home Premium, 1yr At-Home Warranty, 1yr 3GB Online Backup, 6Cell Battery » for $774

When Apple starts offering actual desktop hardware in their desktops and prices them accordingly (ie. competitively), then I'll forgive any Apple apologist saying that Apple's are of "superior quality".  As of right now, using mobile hardware in standard desktops to justify the expense is a cop out.  Sorry, but that's just the truth.  Where are the consumer systems with quad core processors?  Where are they with options for more than 4GB of RAM (at a cheaper price than SODIMM's)?  Where are the systems with desktop video performance?

When Intel, NVIDIA, and ATI actually release updated mobile parts, Apple will get them, but they'll still be behind in technology compared to every other PC desktop manufacturer out there.

"Even with nearly identical interiors, do you get what you pay for? The Macbook I have is high quality. But the HP notebook mentioned above is a piece of junk."

Macbooks are currently built by ASmobile, but they used to be built by Quanta, who now builds HP's.  All in all, I haven't seen much difference in quality between the two ODM's.  Both ODM's make acceptable systems, but the styling and feature set is the only differentiating factor.  So far, I've been more impressed by the features offered by Clevo and Compal above the other two.

weedmonk

What we'll get now will be the same excuses that we used to see in the pre-Jobs days for overprised Macs. "Sure they're more but that's because they're worth it" and "If the market's willing to pay it, they must be better"

It's the same as how Cadillac sold any product back in their dark days of the 80s. They'd become a Chevy with extra chrome and velour seats at 50% extra and defended the price difference by saying "but it's a Cadillac" (Note that since the total change in direction starting with the STS, Cadillac has become a highly respectable vendor and this should in no way reflect them today)

Macs are more expensive, and they've always been more expensive.  This isn't new.  A couple observations:

The iMac comparisons are apples to oranges.  Yes, you absolutely can get a PC with much better specs than an iMac for a lot less money.  Most people don't buy a PC on specs, and unless you're a gamer, 3D or CAD professional, specs are less important now than they've ever been.  In other words, even the slowest machines on the market are fast enough to do what 90% of people need.  That's not to excuse the price difference, but to explain how people go about purchasing machines.  The iMac is fast enough for what most people need and very aesthetically pleasing.  If you think people don't overpay for aesthetics, pick up a Pottery Barn or Crate and Barrel catalog sometime.   People who buy computers on specs or are worried about the fact that the iMac uses mobile vs. desktop hardware are not in the iMac's market.  

I think the cost differences with Apple laptops are more of an issue.  This is anecdotal, but it seems to me that Apple laptop hardware has historically been more problematic than equivalent PC hardware.  (Of course, I've always dealt with business hardware and not the consumer stuff).  Regardless, I've always been under the impression that Apple's laptop hardware has been semi-unreliable.  

The other thing I find interesting is that it's almost impossible to buy a 1" thick PC laptop with a 14 or 15 inch screen.  Modern consumer PC laptops tend to have a wedge shape that starts at 1" and increases from there (see the Dell Studio laptops).  I believe Sony makes some thinner laptops, but they're no cheaper than Apple's offerings.  I don't like the wedge shape and thinness is a huge, huge factor for me in buying a laptop.  

Finally, the single trackpad button on Apple laptops seems ridiculous.  It more or less requires the use of a Bluetooth mouse.  Having to double tap or hold a keyboard button to right-click is silly.  I need to right-click to use a computer.  Apple has made this difficult for me, so it really puts me off their machines.

I think the price premium on the iMacs is absolutely justified, but I'm not sure Macbooks are worth the extra money.  Apple is going to refresh their laptop line in the next couple of months, so it will be interesting to see what they come up with.  I'm guessing they'll be thinner and less expensive, which might change the buying equation.

Waethorn for a computer builder you sure are clueless.  Little computer shops and custom build PC's are dead brother.  PC gaming continues to get crushed in favor of HD console gaming.  

It used to be a Dell, HP, Compaq or whatever was so over priced and proprietary, that building your own or going to PC store to get a PC was the way to go, especially in the glory days of PC gaming.  I know I annually ungraded my customer rig with anew video card, mobo, cpu and ram, just to play the latest games.  God what a waste of time and money compared to Xbox 360 gaming.

Once Dell and other got a clue and massively dropped their prices, plus notebooks got real cheap, and finally PC gaming has tanked for the most part, customer machines or PC shop machines are dying fast.

In the US where I live those little shops are all but gone.  The few I used to go to are gone for sure, and before they died they told me flat out it was bad with razor thin margins.

I would say 80% of the people I know these days dont even have a desktop anymore.  If they do they are waiting for it to die to replace it with a notebook, or a notebook just wont work for a reason.

Lastly like BrightrevCarl stated, joe user could give a rats @$$ about specs these days.  The iMac sells because it looks good on your desk, saves a TON of desk space, and works good for those who get them.  My wife is a typical iMac customer, she has NO clue what so ever that her iMac has SO-DIMM's, and since she does not play games on a computer besides Soduku the ATI video card in her iMac is MORE than enough.  I mean Sony, Dell and Gateway all have iMac clones now.  I just did a side job and setup a Drs. office with 4 of those Dell iMac clones that they specifically asked for PC that looked like the iMac because they wanted them to look nice, and take up less space than their aging white box junk they had.

@BrightrevCarl

The Consumer's Association here in the UK did a report recently on laptop reliability and Apple came out average (only one manufacturer made better than average, Toshiba).  From what I have experienced and been told by Mac dealers most of the problems came from Apple's 1G laptops.  We have a MacBook that had to have two logic boards replaced and a DVD drive.  My 2G laptop has had no problems at all.  I would avoid any Apple 1G products but my 14 year old is very keen on the new MacBook due next month!

I thought it was interesting that I just read an article a day or two ago that said there wasn't much difference in price:

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

I think a lot of it depends on which manufacture that you go to when buying your hardware (which may also say something about the quality of the hardware you're buying).

I like Macs. In fact, as a machine, Macs definitely stand up well compared to the top-of-the-line Sony Vaios out there.

But from my perspective, it's difficult to justify investing $1,500 into a laptop that I'm going to replace every three years, as I usually do. Just as important, you can get a really solid laptop below $1,000 if you buy a Toshiba -- which have always worked solid for me. In fact, my six-year-old Toshiba would still be in operation if not for 1) my desire to actually get Vista (and I wasn't going to try to do a clean install on my old laptop) and 2) the desire to get a DVD burner already installed and just a snazzy new laptop overall. The current Toshiba, with four gigs of RAM and the 160 gigs of hard drive space -- all that I need since I have two one-terabyte external hard drives -- works well for my needs.

The one cheap laptop brand I would never recommend is Acer. Not to anyone. My own experience (bought one a year ago for my play-around laptop) and that of my friends just shows that all you'll get from them is lousy speakers, poor graphics cards and the lack of a reboot disk (dumb, dumb, dumb).

@jamestucker,  That link was pretty good especially considering it came from a PC site.

Yes it is all about what you want for sure.  I would never own a notebook bigger than a 13inch.  With today's hardware a 13inch notebook is small, light and powerful.  That right there drives the cost up for me righ away, and I am limited to Apple, Sony, and a single Dell, all of which are very close in price.

I could save good money if I wanted to buy a 15.4inch glossy HP notebook.....from Target.

James, one problem with the comparison is that they compared a 15 in MBP to a 17 in Dell. I configuerd a 17 in HP with DVD software and the same CPU,, RAM and HD size to the base model 17 in MBP [at $2,800] and the HP was around $800 less. This wass two weeks ago. I did not upgrade the MBP at all as that makes the difference even greater.

I will say that iMac vs Dell was around the same or better and that Snake made a good point about Joe user wanting to satisfy space concerns rather than specs. I have had many friends by the iMac because of it's small footprint and no need for a Tower under neath the desk. I think that the iMac is price competitively, but not the notebook line.

A couple of poor articles from Joe Wilcox. And a poor headline from Paul.

Apple doesn't sell sell a mid-range tower. So why compare an iMac to a  Dell .... mid-range tower? How about comparing an iMac to Dell's "iMac", the XPS One?

As for the laptops. ... another poor comparison. Let's take an HP laptop (that HP no longer sells) that's now available from Target at a "sale price" to clear stock ..... and compare it with a nearly EOL MacBook .... that within four or five weeks will, at the very least, get a spec upgrade.

@Avro

It's always interesting to hear the different data points.  Apple doesn't actually make its own hardware (nor do many/any of the other companies for that matter) so I suppose it comes down to the quality control practices of the manufacturing company.  It would make sense that, as was your experience, quality would improve on a given model over time.  (Sort of like buying the first year of a redesigned car.)

MaryW

The fact that Apple has huge gaps in their product line is not an excuse for them or a benefit.

If I load up an iMac and that is missing any feature that I want (and at that price it shouldn't but it will), I have to pay $1,500 more to go to a minimal Pro that's configured roughly the same way. That's insane.

And there are other gaps all through the line up.

DRWAM

When the price comparisons are done, they very often are done the way you did it.

1) Pick a Mac

2) Pick a roughly equivalent Windows PC

3) Add items to the Windows PC to match the Mac

5) Compare

What's missing is step 4 - Add items to the Mac to match the Windows PC

And, of course, what's really missing is.

Step 0) Pick the features you want regardless of whether there's a matching Mac.

Skipping Step 0 means that the comparison is based on setting criteria for the desired computer that happen to match one of the very few Apple configurations. In reality, when people do Step 0, they find that they have to buy a Mac with lots of things they don't need to get what they want. In reality, Step 3 has a lot less items since matching items the person didn't need isn't really important.

When I bought my macbook a year ago, the price difference between a macbook and a nearly equivalent pc laptop was close enough for me. I wanted to be able to run os x, so I paid a little bit of premium. A few months later the premium was even greater. Now, I'd probably buy a pc laptop instead of a macbook. Other than an investment in applications, the OS just doesn't mean that much to me. Leopard has been nearly flawless for me, Vista since SP1 has been great too. With most of the low end pc laptops including *at least* 2GB of RAM, it's easy to get my Unix by running Linux in a VM. In my opinion, Apple needs to spec up and/or lower prices soon.

That HP machine isn't directly comparable. First, Target shows the price as $849. Second, other than a larger hard drive and more RAM the specs fall short of the MacBook.

The HP machine has a slower and older CPU. Because of it's chipset it really only has 3GB RAM, and having an additional 200MB of RAM sucked away by crappy internal graphics isn't a benefit it's a shortcoming.

Sure, when you build a heavier, flimsier, machine with older tech it's going to be cheaper. Not that Macs aren't more expensive, but it's nowhere near 100%, I'd say about 25%.

@gavers - I think the two machines are comparable, it's just that in some respects one machine will have an advantage over the other unless you pay extra. The area where they are not comparable is size and weight. I can't buy that particular HP in a smaller size and weight. On the other hand, I have to spend a lot more money to spec up the macbook to get close to the HP RAM and HD, plus the HP has a built-in flash card reader and an expansion slot that can accept such things as a Verizon EVDO card. I can't spec a Macbook to those features. A comparable Macbook will cost 1299 not 1099. That's a 50% increase in cost for essentially the ability to run OS X, 1/2 inch of thickness, and 1lb or weight. Is that worth it? I guess it depends on your personal requirements.

To balance out the last mac-vs-pc-pricing post I made a few days ago, Paul Thurrott has his own perspective on...

One issue that hasn't been touched on is resale.  I can still sell my iMac G5 for 500 USD, and it is three years old.

Further, Apple has a very narrow product line, and this has costs and benefits.  From Apple's perspective it almost always leads the consumer to stepping up a notch.  Thus, if you decide upon an iMac,  you are faced with the choice of good, better, best.  Best is almost always overpriced, good lacks some key feature, and surprisingly, better has the highest profit margins.  

This narrow product line also makes comparisons between Apple and non-Apple hardware difficult.  For example, Apple doesn't make a cheap fifteen inch laptop, if you want 15 or 17 inches you're gettin' a mac book pro.  This leads to unfair, or at least inappropriate price comparisons.

It is important to remember that Apple has about a 30% gross profit margin, thus Apple must be more expensive, the question is how much more.  Most analysis put the actual difference at between 10% and 20%.  Based upon my anecdotal evidence this seems about right.  

Finally, Since Apple doesn't lower their prices very often, the best value for a Mac is right after they update them.  For example, after an update to the Mac Pro line they are frequently cheaper than competing models from Dell, etc.  By the time the system is updated 9-12 months later, they are significantly MORE expensive than the competing Dell.  

All of these factors make actual price comparisons between Apple and non-Apple computers difficult, but not impossible.  Simply follow a couple of basic rules.

1. Only buy after updates, they provide the greatest value at that time.  Mac Books and iMacs are updated about twice a year.  Mac Pros and Xserves every 9-12 months.

2. Regardless of system the mid level is typically the best value.

3. Search for various rebates, and consider refurbished units if you are trying to go low bid.

4. Never buy Ram from Apple, it is typically double that of quality sources.

5. Virtually everyone is eligible for the educator discount which is about 5%.  If your a teacher, a student, or have school aged children (Apple extends the discount to home schoolers as well) than your eligible.  It might even be worth taking an extension class at a local community college to get the 200.00 discount on a Mac Pro.

Regards

Joe Dokes

Mike,

One of the most annoying things that I read about when ever I see price comparisons between Windows Machines and Macs is the very frequent Winjihadist apology, Macs are overpriced because they include more than the consumer needs.

How f-ing elitist of you.  One of the great joys is to watch someone buy a Mac and see how they begin to actually use a computer for many things they never dreamed of, they begin to edit photos, they begin to edit movies, they begin to burn DVD's.  

Unlike, PC makers, Apple actually realizes that the power to computing is to make that power accessible.  Thus, all those features that you don't think is NECESSARY for grandma, guess what, if she buys a mac she might actually use some of them.  Further, just because Apple won't lower their profit margins to destroy their business, and Apple won't strip their machines of features that you think are unessary, does not mean they don't bring the consumer a great deal of value.

One of the things I truly HATE about f-ing corporate IT Nazi's is the fact that they think that they are god and KNOW what the end user wants and needs.  Mike pull you f-ing head out and realize that just because you write code doesn't mean you KNOW what anyone needs.

Regards

Joe Dokes

What I did was ask my nephew the size screen that he wanted. It was 17 in, so The base model MBP was $2800. I wet to HP and choose their 17 in Intel laptop line [HP Pavilion dv9700t], since I do not know what MOBO was used in either. Then I configured it to the same size HD, RAM, vid card, battery and same CPU model as well as screen specs and add on such as webcam and mic, as well as the most expensive video and photo editing software, Vista 64 and install disc, and it's still $1000 cheaper for the HP, but weighs 0.9 lbs more. It also included Works, so I had to recommend it to my nephew, who wanted a PC any way. I really wanted him to get a Mac and dual boot Vista, but 50% more cost or $1000 was just too much , especially for a Freshman who may drop it or lose it. It seemed to have everything that I could do on my Mac, then I found a $500 off coupon for the HP! Jackpot! It was $1300 so I had him add one yr of warranty.

I did take a 'peek' at the Dell all in one, which seemed more expensive than the iMac, but did not compare exact specs.  But this post was specifically about the laptops. My idea is like Joe's, buy mid range, then upgrade sooner. Still, It seems like my Mac has more service year potential than any of my PC's. I say potential, just in case it blows up and I cannot fix it [although I have built a few PC's and upgraded everything on a Mac except for the MOBO].

Joe, I also encourage Apple buyers to consider refurbs as they are less expensive, tested and have the same warranty as new. Instead of buying the mid range Pro Tower almost 2 yrs ago, I save $600 and got a refurb 3 GHz quad,with the ATI 1900XT, then added 3 more internal dries and upped the RAM to 4GBs. A few months ago you could have still got one for $2,200 or a $13000 savings. I al most bought another to run Vista, but this one runs flawlessly with Leopard and Vista, so it looks as if i won't need a new one for a few years, just like my 1999 G4 Tower that it replaced, and I still use it in the exercise room [but installed a 1.25 GHz OWC CPU upgrade].

@mike galos

"The fact that Apple has huge gaps in their product line is not an excuse for them or a benefit"

Sure. That obviously explains why Apple is picking up millions of new Mac users.

At least they're consistent, in my experience they break twice as often as well.

2 iBooks, 1 Powerbook and 1 MacBook everyone died shortly after their warranty expired. In Europe they were sued for the bad logic boards in their laptops, we don't do consumer protection here so they got away with it.  

Whoever pointed toward **re-sale** value as an incentive....ROFLMAO. Again. Honestly. ROFLMAO.

These are the same tools who 4yrs ago would be berating us with the insufferable macolytes talking points of how PowerPC is superior to Intel x86.

Boucing icons in the OS=="MORE FUN!!!"

Anyone who's picked up the Sunday Paper and look at the advertisements could have told you this. Thats why my household has elected to avoid Macs, because not paying double for anything is a family tradition. Apple should look to AMD to offer a high quality lower costing line of Macs for people like me. Then Leopard might break the 10 world marketshare barrier.

Paul, a couple of things.

1. I agree with you. I'll probably never buy an HP ever again.

2. I bought a desktop in April that had a 2.4ghz QUAD core, 3GB ram @ 800mhz and a 500GB hard drive. It was $499. I then went on to add a few bells and whistles like 19 in 1 media reader, Wireless N, high end wireless mouse/keyboard, Adobe Premiere and Photoshop Elements and 2 years of at home service and paid $808 after taxes. I went to Apple to configure a similar system (although it was impossible to get it exact, I got it pretty darn close) and it came to almost $3,000... and for what extra? Bluetooth? iMovie? iPhoto? My wireless N with 8 USB ports, Adobe Premiere and Live Photo gallery are all better than those anyway.

Weedmonk,

Why are you laughing at resale, go over to ebay and check out the auctions, used Macs are actually worth something.  You may not believe it, you may want to stick your head in the sand but here are some auctions that have g5 imacs for over 500 USD.  I paid 1500 for my G5, it's nice to know that it is still worth something.  

Sorry your computer after three years is a f-in door stop in terms of value.

Any time this discussion comes up I am always reminded of the old adage, "He knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."  

I honestly believe and know that Macs are more expensive, are they twice the price? No way.  Are they cheaper, well I would argue that they are, in the long run.  For example DRWAM has a 9 year old tower that still chugs away.  

So considering Apple's features, resale and longevity, I think Apple offers a hell of deal.  

Regards

Joe Dokes

Joe:

I have an almost 8 year old E-machines that I got for $550 that's still chugging away... I'd say that's pretty decent.

I recently bought the $1299 Macbook and feel like a sucker.  I purchased the Macbook to write iPhone apps and because the fanboys finally wore me down with their Mac praise.  

For a hefty $1299:

   The integrated graphics are shockingly bad.  

   The 13 inch screen is too small (15 inch is the sweet spot for me).  

   OSX is not particularly snappy.  

   It only has 2gb of memory and a lousy 180Gb hard drive.

Likes:  Cute, nice keyboard, runs Handbrake well, magnetic power cord, iLife suite is cool, good resale value.

It seems that I could get a similar Vista machine and save $300-400.  MBP's have good specs but take overpriced to a new level.  I have buyer's remorse when I go to Frys and see the attractive Sony laptops with the Macbook style keyboards (Sony needs to ditch the hideous stickers plastered over their machines).  The ThinkPad is still the laptop standard.

The 9 yr old G4 runs Leopard very well and speedy. That's why I bought another on Ebay for my exercise room, before I bought my Pro Tower. Also, I have a 6115 series Performa from 1995 that still works as do two of my friends'. I have a beige G3 from 1997 that still works and runs 10.2 well. I was preparing to give them to charity so I had to turn them on and reformat tha drives to rid personal info. So, my experience is that none of the Macs went bad. These are all desktops, not laptops.

@BrightrevCarl

No one with a Mac laptop needs a 2-button mouse. All you have to do is turn on the trackpad preference "For secondary clicks, place two fingers on the trackpad then click the button". This is a right-click in OS X, Windows in a VM, and the drivers Apples supplies for running Windows natively have this as well.

I think it's a better solution too than cutting up the button and having to hit the correct half, or even third on the Thinkpads, to get left click or right click, since the target button is huge on Apple laptops. A related feature is placing two fingers on the trackpad, anywhere on it, to scroll in either direction.

With regular upgrades and maintenance, you can make any good PC a worthwile investment. The problem is that most individuals do not take the time to maintain their PC's. How hard is it to buy a compressed air can and to clean out the bay? Many people with poor habits, don't even bother to clean up their monitor. With regular upgrades to the processor, memory, hard drives, video cards, and other components, a PC can have a really good resale value. It just comes down to how serious you take that investment and maintain it.

I've been able to resell older PC's up to $500 USD. Sometimes the models will feature older processors, but the upgrades elsewhere still make them relevent today. Thats why my systems that I've done have lasted up to 7 years, before needing a power supply swapout.

BrightrevCarl said:

"Finally, the single trackpad button on Apple laptops seems ridiculous.  It more or less requires the use of a Bluetooth mouse.  Having to double tap or hold a keyboard button to right-click is silly.  I need to right-click to use a computer.  Apple has made this difficult for me, so it really puts me off their machines."

My comments: I agree. This notion that the 2 or 3 button mouse isn't a good solution is ludicrous. If my 3 year old daughter can get used to a two button mouse, then any adult should have no excuse. I know many people who absolutely despise trackpads and would feel comfortable with a mouse. Especially in America where physical devices with tactile response is very popular.

As a former Mac user, I found it to be one of the most frustrating parts of using a Mac. After using Windows mouse controls, it felt archaic to use a single button mouse. I love the fact that I have a built in scroll wheel so that I can just use my finger. I don't think the mouse is going away anytime soon, because gesturing technology is still in its infancy. I think part of the argument of freedom to choose that is lacking on the Mac side.

@subzerohitman721

"With regular upgrades and maintenance, you can make any good PC a worthwile investment."

True of desktops, not laptops, which are much harder to upgrade. You can do memory and disk, but memory will max out on slot limits and ram density. Nothing can typically be done with the cpu.

"As a former Mac user, I found it to be one of the most frustrating parts of using a Mac. After using Windows mouse controls, it felt archaic to use a single button mouse. I love the fact that I have a built in scroll wheel so that I can just use my finger."

Of course, any multibutton mouse (USB or BT) that you use with Windows can be used with a Mac (well, almost all). The mouse I'm using now is (egads!) made by Microsoft, and works fine. Perhaps the only MS product with which I've had so little trouble! The point being that the old canard about the "Apple one button mouse" is just that. Use any mouse you like.

As for the main point in the original article, I think that the comparison is not legitimate. This gets to be a very complex issue, and almost impossible to resolve in a non-partisan manner. However, it only matters in one way: Does the "higher price" of Macs constrain the growing market share (which is still small globally)?

With Mac sales increasing at 3 times the rate of the PC market overall, that's a hard case to make. That said, I hope Apple does make a foray into the well-under-$1000 laptop world---they would sell a lot of them.

Yeh sub, why didn't you just use the Winmouse, unless it was a PS2? I use an MS mouse and a Logitech. Both are laser and work on both platforms. The new one is the MX Revolution. Logitech replaced my MX 1000 was was charging poorly [probably a bad base station as I cleaned the contacts] since it was still under the 3 yr warranty. The MS mouse is in my weight room so I don't know the model as I'm too lazy too go down to check. Wait until you're my age!

"With Mac sales increasing at 3 times the rate of the PC market overall, that's a hard case to make."

oh no, god no. Here we go again. Do they really not teach maths (math) at school anymore?

@gorath

Yes, they do teach "maths"; mine went through Tensor calculus. And even poor techies also learn the definition---an logical fallacy-- of an Ad Hominem rebuttal.

If you have a point to make, make it.

The main point I was making was this,

"As for the main point in the original article, I think that the comparison is not legitimate. This gets to be a very complex issue, and almost impossible to resolve in a non-partisan manner. However, it only matters in one way: Does the "higher price" of Macs constrain the growing market share (which is still small globally)?"

Since Mac sales are going up very rapidly, the questions are (1) would a cheaper low end Mac increase this, or would the inevitable lower quality compromise the brand? (2) Will the (yes, only slowly increasing, yes, still small) apple global market share increase markedly if Apple sells really cheap Macs?

Those are legitimate questions, and are really marketing questions, not Fanboi (Mac or PC) posturing.

Since Apple is pretty much selling all they can make...guess some people feel differently and as long as there are why should Apple change?  To become just another HP or Dell?

I just read another article that said that on average BMWs cost twice as much as Toyotas! BMWs are such a rip-off!

So, my point here is not that Macs are like BMWs, but that cheap, low-cost Mac laptops do not exist. The quoted article compares the AVERAGE SELLING PRICE of laptops. Everyone knows that Apple do not sell laptops in the bottom-end of the market, where a lot of Windows laptops live. You know, the big heavy clunky things with the 15 minutes battery life that most of your friends buy before they ask your opinion.

Personally, if I was a retailer, I'd be loving my Mac laptops that attract the higher spender.

In summary, the article has nothing to do with the price of comparative laptops, and the headline provided by Paul is misleading in the extreme. If this tabloid journalism is what I can expect reading this site, I think I'll be taking my eyes elsewhere. Sure, a sensationalist headline might work once, but discerning readers are turned off a second time.