Apple twice the price of PCs

Research by analyst house NPD has shown that, on average, Apple users pay twice as much in the shops as PC users. Retail data showed that in June the average cost of a Windows laptop was $700, compared to $1,515 for an Apple machine. The difference was even more stark with desktop models, with the average Windows machine going for $550, compared to $1,543 for an Apple.

"There are plenty of Windows PCs you can buy at high prices," Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis told vnunet.com. "But if you want to buy an Apple you don't have any choice, you'll have to pay more." He said that in his opinion it was just a choice Apple had made and the company could argue that the value of the software and brand made up for the price differential.

View: The full story @ vnunet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

VIA heralds end of third-party PC chipset biz

Next Story

Alison Carroll is the New Lara Croft

132 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

fanboys from both sides, who gives a $%#! honestly.

Are the PC Fanboys going to buy a Mac probably not, are they giong to convince a Mac Fanboy to change, probably not, so why bother.
Reverse that for the other side.

Security means f'all as it is only as secure as the user in front of the machine. It doesn't matter how many updates are released on each side.

Just use the machine you prefer to do what you what, when you want, how you want, how cares what OS its running. It's all just 0's and 1's in the long run.

(dyreryft said @ #44)
fanboys from both sides, who gives a $%#! honestly.

Are the PC Fanboys going to buy a Mac probably not, are they giong to convince a Mac Fanboy to change, probably not, so why bother.
Reverse that for the other side.

Security means f'all as it is only as secure as the user in front of the machine. It doesn't matter how many updates are released on each side.

Just use the machine you prefer to do what you what, when you want, how you want, how cares what OS its running. It's all just 0's and 1's in the long run.

+1

i agree with the above statement also i'd like to add to all apple / windows / linux fanbois if its not in a climate controled room of it own serving hundreds then its a PC ( and i can hear the mactards scream NOOooooo ) oh yes my furry little fiends its a PC why you ask well what does PC stand for? Personal Computer so realy it doesn't mater who buys what were all the same in the end slaves of the bit the byte and never ending thirst for faster

(Atlonite said @ #43)
i agree with the above statement also i'd like to add to all apple / windows / linux fanbois if its not in a climate controled room of it own serving hundreds then its a PC ( and i can hear the mactards scream NOOooooo ) oh yes my furry little fiends its a PC why you ask well what does PC stand for? Personal Computer so realy it doesn't mater who buys what were all the same in the end slaves of the bit the byte and never ending thirst for faster

Here here!

Also, I'm a PC man, have been all my life, but I am going to invest in a Mac at some point in the not so distant future as I would like a dedicated web design PC/Laptop.

lol so many windows people, so much jealousy, I have 2 pc's and a Mac so I'm not particularly an Apple fanboy, though you windows guys are really trying to make yourselves feel better about yourselves.

(sarcasm)nice facts like:
-The experience is called being a naive consumer.
-they consume and therefore they exist
-its obvious that apple fans have more money to spend.
-People buy PCs because they have other things in their life that occupies them, and their PC is used for their everyday computing needs. Mac people buy macs because their life revolves around Apple, so this is probably the reason why they would spend more for a Mac.

and the list goes on and on.
(/sarcasm)

Anyone who thinks that Apple's higher price tag is news is brand new to the world of technology. That logo, which merely conceals PC-brand parts and therefore has no real value in and of itself, is still very expensive. Apple wants you to believe you are paying for some sort of experience.

The experience is called being a naive consumer.

I don't care what the arguements are about more secure, or stable or whatever, any Mac is NOT worth the price you pay compared to a Windows system.

Most Mac lovers are just fanatical fanboys, just like all you raving lunatic Firefox fanboys!!

And who was the rocket scientist that realized Macs are way more expensive than PC's!!

The latest Dell Studio lines also make an interesting comparison with apple:

Dell Studio Hybrid
2GHz Celeron
1GB RAM
160GB Desktop Drive
Integrated graphics
Larger form factor
Cost £399

Apple Mac Mini
1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo
1GB RAM
80GB Laptop drive
Integrated graphics
Small form factor
£cost 399

This is with the Mac Mini having been out several years and needing a refresh.

it's obvious that apple fans have more money to spend, while working and not wasting time in a flame war in neowin...


don't look at me, I don't have a mac and it's probably the first article I write comments...

I own a macbook pro and yet im not a apple fanboys and consider almost any Apple products are overpriced and overhyped.

But yet, there are people that don't have much options :

a ) hackintosh if you have lucky or have enough time/expertise to spend time tweaking the machine.

b ) An Apple products is considered a elitist / fashion product and for some persons this fact really matter, is the same to buy a expensive rolex versus a cheap casio.

c ) people that need OSX (my case).

People buy PCs because they have other things in their life that occupies them, and their PC is used for their everyday computing needs. Mac people buy macs because their life revolves around Apple, so this is probably the reason why they would spend more for a Mac.

Actually I bought mine so I could more efficiently use it for my everyday computing needs. You'd be amazed how much time you save when you're not protecting, scanning, defragging, updating, and rebooting.

(jesseinsf said @ #35)
People buy PCs because they have other things in their life that occupies them, and their PC is used for their everyday computing needs. Mac people buy macs because their life revolves around Apple, so this is probably the reason why they would spend more for a Mac.

Or maybe they just have the money and like Macs more.

Whoooa.

(John S. said @ #35.2)
Actually I bought mine so I could more efficiently use it for my everyday computing needs. You'd be amazed how much time you save when you're not protecting, scanning, defragging, updating, and rebooting.

AV software does its thing automatically. No human required.
Scanning what?
Defragging; for those with defrag-OCD maybe this is an issue, but it's not needed.
Apple doesn't issue updates? Besides the ones you pay for, the ones they call Jungle Cat, Jungle Cat Again and Jungle Cat in the Hat?
On rebooting; every hear of a kernal panic? Many other Mac users have.

Stop buying into the I'm a Mac ads.

(John S. said @ #35.2)
Actually I bought mine so I could more efficiently use it for my everyday computing needs. You'd be amazed how much time you save when you're not protecting, scanning, defragging, updating, and rebooting.

Vista now covers all five of those 'problems' you speak of automatically. Seriously.

This is years of progress at work.

BUT, I do accept that owning a custom-built PC is a bit of a pain in the arse to diagnose hardware problems when they surface. However it's a rare occurrence.

What apple lacks is a "budget" mac in the $500 price range. They have the bare-bone mac mini for $600, but with all the components it will cost close to $1000. And you can upgrade a mac mini like a regular desktop machine. So basically they need to make a desktop version of the mac mini and price it around $400.

I think that is Apple's big plan, to go after the "budget PC" market.

I think that is Apple's big plan, to go after the "budget PC" market.

I do not agree. One of Apple's selling points is that it's worth the extra money for the "better hardware".

why the big fuss its like a farrari or a special clothing line, you pay more for the brand name. It costs more because they choose the hardware and deliver on the drivers for that hardware, which then helps there slogan "it just works". I mean Bose speakers you pay more probably for the same thing but its because its Bose that you pay more. This shouldn't be in the news, no one cares about this, well not the mac users anyways.

(offroadaaron said @ #31)
why the big fuss its like a farrari or a special clothing line, you pay more for the brand name. It costs more because they choose the hardware and deliver on the drivers for that hardware, which then helps there slogan "it just works". I mean Bose speakers you pay more probably for the same thing but its because its Bose that you pay more. This shouldn't be in the news, no one cares about this, well not the mac users anyways.

Ferrari: you pay for the name??

Bose, the same thing??

Sit in a Ferrari, listen to a pair of Bose speakers, and maybe you'll put down your drink and sober up a little.

(LTD said @ #31.1)

Ferrari: you pay for the name??

Bose, the same thing??

Sit in a Ferrari, listen to a pair of Bose speakers, and maybe you'll put down your drink and sober up a little.

and maybe the same thing if you sit down and work on a mac ;)

PS. I've sat in many cars over 160k, they arent all that special, and I don't find bose speakers to be as good as everyone goes on about them especially low end ones. Plus have you watched top gear? everytime they take luxury parts out the car (= less to put into the car and less cost to them) the higher the cost of the car.

(LTD said @ #31.1)

Ferrari: you pay for the name??

Bose, the same thing??

Sit in a Ferrari, listen to a pair of Bose speakers, and maybe you'll put down your drink and sober up a little.

As a massive car enthusiast and having driven a bunch of high end sports cars I will agree that you get what you pay for in a Ferrari. But the Bose example is way off. Bose are just like Macs. People spend a ton of money on them and know deep down that they just got ripped but still hype them up to be the greatest things on earth. Talk to anyone who is big into HT and they all agree that Bose suck big fat donkey balls.

With the macs, you are also paying for the styling of them (which is very nice looking IMO), the operating system, Ilife '08 (a roughly $70-80 piece of software that's included), and having all the support of being able to bring your mac into an apple retail store if it has any problems.

(Impact said @ #29)
With the macs, you are also paying for the styling of them (which is very nice looking IMO), the operating system, Ilife '08 (a roughly $70-80 piece of software that's included), and having all the support of being able to bring your mac into an apple retail store if it has any problems.

Included? Where's the DoJ then? MS got sued for giving software in their OS.

(Joel said @ #29.1)
Included? Where's the DoJ then? MS got sued for giving software in their OS.

iLife isn't a browser Apple is forcing you to use like IE was.

(John S. said @ #29.2)

iLife isn't a browser Apple is forcing you to use like IE was.

How about Safari? I'm just curious. . can you install any version of MacOS 10 and choose not to install Safari?

(Divide Overflow said @ #29.3)
How about Safari? I'm just curious. . can you install any version of MacOS 10 and choose not to install Safari?

Apple is not having the monopoly position Microsoft was ruled as having, so they do not play by the same set of rules.

(note: this is not my opinion, but it's why things are why they are with IE vs Safari among other things)

(John S. said @ #29.2)

iLife isn't a browser Apple is forcing you to use like IE was.


No one forced you to use IE on a Windows PC. FYI, MS also got in trouble for other software it included, not just IE. iLife-type software would have been very high on the DoJ hit list.

The article is FUD simply because they obviously didn't compare two similarly spec'd machines. They just took an average PC, and said it costs 1/2 as much as the lowest costing Mac or whatever.

If I had to take a ballpark guess at the difference, I'd say Apple sells its hardware at about 15-25% more than the equivalent PC. You are basically paying for Apple Support, Apple Logo, extra Apple marketing, and Mac OS X.

It may be worth it to some people, but not me. I'd take my Windows over your Mac OS X any day. I used Mac OS X for about a year on a Mac Mini and I'm not sure what everyone gets so worked up over. The only thing I thought was cool is how easy it was to install an application (or rather how easy it was to uninstall an application). Other then that, it seemed to take 2 more clicks than Windows does to do just about anything.

(Shadrack said @ #26)
The article is FUD simply because they obviously didn't compare two similarly spec'd machines. They just took an average PC, and said it costs 1/2 as much as the lowest costing Mac or whatever.

If I had to take a ballpark guess at the difference, I'd say Apple sells its hardware at about 15-25% more than the equivalent PC. You are basically paying for Apple Support, Apple Logo, extra Apple marketing, and Mac OS X.

It may be worth it to some people, but not me. I'd take my Windows over your Mac OS X any day. I used Mac OS X for about a year on a Mac Mini and I'm not sure what everyone gets so worked up over. The only thing I thought was cool is how easy it was to install an application (or rather how easy it was to uninstall an application). Other then that, it seemed to take 2 more clicks than Windows does to do just about anything.

if you actually go to dells website and go to apples website and price similiar laptops (dells xps line and macbook pro) you will see that the apple will be atleast $1000 more and thats not exactly te same with the apple missing things likea fingerprint reader(which some businesses might think is important).

This article isn't stating that Apple computers are a rip off. All it is saying is that if you choose to go with a Mac, you don't really have the option to get lower quality or performence to fit your budget and needs. You either pay the big bucks and get more than you might need or you don't get a Mac at all.

Holy crap...you actually understood what you read?! What are you doing here? I demand you leave this site and never post again. You will not ruin the status quo with all your fancy-smancy 'reading comprehension'!

That's the reason I won't get a Mac, and the reason I feel a lot of people are probably getting duped into buying something that's 'cool'. For the price of a Mac, you can get a PC that will do everything the average person needs it to do and they can get it for half the price of a Mac. It's not about what's inside, it's about what you need it for. People that buy Macs just to browse the internet, check email, listen to music, and do some office work are getting ripped off, and that's the demographic that makes up the majority of people in the market.

I don't have a problem with Macs - they're cool machines, but for what I do with a computer, I can get a PC to do it for much much cheaper than I can get a Mac, and that's why I don't own one.

-Spenser

Well obviously everyone who buys a Mac isn't doing so because it fits what they want from a computer. Clearly they are all getting ripped off because they've never heard of Windows :p

When I compare my £800 Mac with my £450 non-Mac laptop there is a huge difference in quality, and that's just based on the hardware.

I just built a Windows system that will run anything I throw at it for under 1,000. This is Alienware-like power. Take that as you will, but there is no comparable Mac that comes even close to the performance of this sucker at under $1,000 or even approaching 2 grand. There is no Mac I would even trade for this. So you snobs that compare Macs to PCs as Rolls Royce to Skoda, Kia and Daihatsu can suck it. :nuts:

What's worth noting is that Apple's cheapest PC is $599, a Mac Mini with a 1.83GHz Core Duo, combo drive, and an 80GB hard drive. Now, this is a terrible deal, I will not disagree with anyone, but it's the cheapest Mac available. And yet... no one buys it. It has similar specs to the cheaper PC's out there, but it's very rare you see a cheap Mac Mini in someone's house. You're much more likely to see an iMac or a MacBook. I think the simple fact is that Mac users like better computers, and the people who buy cheap PC's only do so because they don't know any better. Mac users pay twice as much by choice; anyone who wants a really cheap PC is the same person who knows Windows well enough and doesn't want to spend the time learning a new OS, or who simply don't have the money to buy a better computer.

And those really cheap computers are going to come subsidized with trial software. That's how the price gets low: advertisements. The only trial software Macs come with, and I don't think they even do anymore, from a third party: Office 2008.

Yeah but the 599 mini does not come with a monitor, keyboard or mouse. The $599 Dell or HP usually does, with similar (sometimes better) hardware specs. That's a major factor when the average Joe goes to buy a new computer.

very nice point, my father bought a sony vaio for around 1800$ and there were lot's of crap like Vista, skype, norton trial's, office trial's and many other crap. That just sucks, you get a new PC and it's already running like crap because you have to wait for stupid norton to load.

Of course you can always uninstall these, but there is a chance vista will mess it up.

(simon360 said @ #19.2)
But again, there's subsidizing to get them down to that price.

Just boot off the Vista disk and 15 mins later you are sitting at the desktop of a nice clean machine without all the bloat. At a cheaper price too thanks to the subsidizing.

...and this just in, apparently Rolls Royce owners pay an average of 3000% more for their cars than Skoda, Kia and Daihatsu owners.

Figuring $700 for a PC. . where do I find the $21,000 Mac Pro? Does it come made of solid platinum, coated in diamonds with spinners and an air ride suspension for its casters? That 21 grand Mac tower had better have switches and a system, G!

I believe this argument has already been considered above anyway. . PC? Intel Motherboard, chipset and processor. Mac? Intel Motherboard, chipset and processor. . where does the better build quality come into play? Add OSX86, and you now only have the logo on the side of the box to differentiate a Mac from a PC. Personally, even with being able to run MacOS on my PC, I still prefer to run something else. I surrender to the cult of the *nix beard rather than the cult of the black turtleneck, thankyouverymuch.

well for a start, some would say that the software plays a fairly big part in why you buy and how you use a computer.

secondly a $700 PC is not going to come close to comparing favorably with a Mac Pro.

(bobbba said @ #18.2)
well for a start, some would say that the software plays a fairly big part in why you buy and how you use a computer.

secondly a $700 PC is not going to come close to comparing favorably with a Mac Pro.

Exactly why OSX86 is key to removing this consideration - Apple EULA or not. Regarding a $700 PC not comparing favorably to a Mac Pro. . I do believe you're missing the point. However, I will play along. Figuring $2500 for a PC, paying 3000% more for a Mac would result in the Mac costing $75,000.

Retail data showed that in June the average cost of a Windows laptop was $700, compared to $1,515 for an Apple machine.

I stopped reading there.

The average cost of Wal-Mart for clothes is what, 15 bucks? The average cost of other stores, like 50-60 bucks? Ok, we should only buy our clothes at Wal-Mart!!!!

I tried to do a rought comparison this morning with a colourful Dell laptop. It started at 500 bucks and I managed to make it 1500 with the same specs of a 1600 bucks MacBook. Okay, you got me there, Macs are 100 bucks more expensive... for an old line, and the next one is rumoured to be less expensive.

I hope the guy who wrote this article is ashamed of his bad job, not looking around, or using false statistics (meaning true ones, but statistics that cannot be compared to each other)

Btw, yeah this article is a flame bait, and so I decided to continue this ongoing flame war...

The price difference could be mostly related to the fact that the PC market actually has competition for hardware. The Mac market is one big monopoly.

Well, this article is Flamebait.

It is biased and compares prices of ananas to know how should cost an hambuger.
The one who posted this piece of sh*t should be really ashamed and should pull it off this site.

There is nothing to see here, except that a lot people buy sh*tty windows computer (with sh*tty hardware) that costs 550$ instead of paying 1500$ for a good Windows computer or a good Mac.

Well if a $500 "****ty" computer fills the needs of a user, why in the hell would they spend $1500 on one?

So far this article has only attracted one flamer....I wonder who that could be.

If it fills the needs of a user, it is okay to buy this computer.

But many people will think that buying a mac costs 2x to 3x the price of a PC after reading this article, which is absolutely false.

Look at the post dated before I posted mines.

They were all like : "Lol, PC are cheaper than Macs, lol"
These are kind of trollish.

However, now that I posted my comments, some comments begins to make sense.

I'd happily pay more money for a Mac, and this is coming from a Windows user. I'm using a Vista laptop right now, and my XP machine is at home. I'm a big Windows lover, but I also seriously admire Macs. Besides, there is nothing wrong with healthy competition

These "Retail datas" only show that people pay for computers that are worth nothing instead of investing in a computer that will serves them correctly. (Either Windows or Mac, 550-700 $ for a computer .... pffffffffffff..... !?!?!)

Which proprietary crap? Windows or Mac?

From my viewpoint, windows crap seems much more proprietary, with all kinds of closed-source non-standards compliant connectors and hardware that barely runs with OEM drivers.

However, if you're arguing that Mac crap is proprietary, then that's probably just as true (see: ipod), but at least large parts of the OS are built on open-source platforms...

This analyst is a moron.

Okay, for 550 $ or 700 $ this is what you get :

Cheap motherboard without capabilities for extensions (1 PCI slot, 2 - 4 USB, NO PCI-E, NO firewire, NO Wi-Fi, NO Bluetooth)
1 Gb ram (can barely run Vista)
Onboard video card (can't play any games)
A 2 years old processor

Well, you bought an obsolete computer without any feature. Congratulation, you will be able to look at your e-mail and chat via MSN. But that's pretty much all you can do. You get what you paid for.


If you pay 1,543 $ for a Windows machine or a Mac, you will, at least, get something a little more usefull.

It is not because Apple machines costs twice the price (there is a margin of 200$ between PC and Macs using equivalent components). It is because Mr John Doe, doesn't know a f**k about computer, and he buys a computer that is worth nothing.

All Macs are worth their price. All PC worth their price too, by the way. If you pay 550$ for a computer, you get what you paid for : B***s***.

For $550 I got a nice Dell with Q6600, 2GB RAM, DVD/CDRW, ATI HD2400 PRO, and 160GB hard drive.

That sound like crap to you? You seriously need to catch up on hardware pricing

(portauthority said @ #6.1)
For $550 I got a nice Dell with Q6600, 2GB RAM, DVD/CDRW, ATI HD2400 PRO, and 160GB hard drive.

That sound like crap to you? You seriously need to catch up on hardware pricing :rolleyes:


AMD/ATI HD2400 pro :
Well, it is worth just a "little" more than onboard video (at least it doesn't use shared memory), but you can't consider it a good card. HD 2600 and up are good cards. A tip, anything from ATI or nvidia below *600 is not worth buying for gaming.

Q6600 :
Well, a little overkill for today's PCs (Quad-core), but it may serve you in the future, good choice

DVD/CDRW :
Hmmm... you have DVD-RW function I hope, I hope it is just a typo. Buy a DVD-RW for 70 $ if you don't have one.

160GB hard drive :
I would have gone for a 320GB myself, but this is just space.

Where is your Wi-Fi ? Where is your bluetooth function to synchronise with your phone ? You got a display screen with that ? Because my computer has a 22" widescreen display and it cost 350 $ only for the Display. You got a mouse (not a microsoft generic, a REAL mouse) ? What is your sound card (if it is onboard, is it cheap AC'97, or HD Audio ?) ? Do you have Gigabyte Ethernet or only 10/100 ? What is your chipset ? The speed of your memory (timings I mean, not DDR speed) ?

(vanacid said @ #3)
Where is your Wi-Fi ? Where is your bluetooth function to synchronise with your phone ? You got a display screen with that ? Because my computer has a 22" widescreen display and it cost 350 $ only for the Display. You got a mouse (not a microsoft generic, a REAL mouse) ? What is your sound card (if it is onboard, is it cheap AC'97, or HD Audio ?) ? Do you have Gigabyte Ethernet or only 10/100 ? What is your chipset ? The speed of your memory (timings I mean, not DDR speed) ?

He just listed standard specs. I don't think he was planning one someone trying to analyze every detail.

(vanacid said @ #6.2)
DVD/CDRW :
Hmmm... you have DVD-RW function I hope, I hope it is just a typo. Buy a DVD-RW for 70 $ if you don't have one.

DVD-RW for $70? Is that Apple pricing?

I got my DVD burner with LightScribe for $30.

You're right ! 28.95 $ right next door !!! holy sh*t, prices dropped a LOT in 3 months.

When I purchased my computer, 3 months ago, it was 70 $. I wonder if it has anything to do with Blu-Ray drives being more available then before.

(vanacid said @ #6.5)
You're right ! 28.95 $ right next door !!! holy sh*t, prices dropped a LOT in 3 months.

When I purchased my computer, 3 months ago, it was 70 $. I wonder if it has anything to do with Blu-Ray drives being more available then before.

It been 30usd for like more than a year now =/

(vanacid said @ #6.2)
AMD/ATI HD2400 pro :
Well, it is worth just a "little" more than onboard video (at least it doesn't use shared memory), but you can't consider it a good card. HD 2600 and up are good cards. A tip, anything from ATI or nvidia below *600 is not worth buying for gaming.

You clearly know nothing about hardware. You can get a very capable video card for $150.

(vanacid said @ #6.2)
Q6600 :
Well, a little overkill for today's PCs (Quad-core), but it may serve you in the future, good choice

But the Xeons in the Mac isn't?

(vanacid said @ #6.2)
DVD/CDRW :
Hmmm... you have DVD-RW function I hope, I hope it is just a typo. Buy a DVD-RW for 70 $ if you don't have one.

They have been $30 for the past 2 years or so.

(vanacid said @ #6.2)
Where is your Wi-Fi ? Where is your bluetooth function to synchronise with your phone ? You got a display screen with that ? Because my computer has a 22" widescreen display and it cost 350 $ only for the Display. You got a mouse (not a microsoft generic, a REAL mouse) ? What is your sound card (if it is onboard, is it cheap AC'97, or HD Audio ?) ? Do you have Gigabyte Ethernet or only 10/100 ? What is your chipset ? The speed of your memory (timings I mean, not DDR speed) ?

WiFi on a desktop? Stick to wires.. much faster. Problem is Mac users don't have the know how to run wires in the attic. So if you just have to have WiFi on a stationary computer then add it for $30. Bluetooth, no thanks, I sync my phone (push) with an Exchange server over the air. But if I wanted to add BT it would only cost $17. Integrated sound isn't bad anymore. It hasn't been for years now. The Mac has integrated sound but I guess that is ok right? Probably the same chip set too for the sound. Most MoBos these days come with 10/100/1000 ethernet. Oh and a 22in LCD is only $200. I would rather not have an integrated monitor anyways. Cheap MS mouse? Hmm.. I am impressed that Apple finally added a wheel and a right button (although disabled by default). Yeah, the cheap MS generic mouse has had this for 15 years now. Lets not get into the mouse discussion please. That just wouldn't be fair. :)

But there is no question the Mac Pro is nice. It just isn't worth the money and is MASSIVE overkill %99 of the time.

Lol and then those people complaining about how Windows sucks and so unstable because of their cheap generic hardware.

If you pay $1500 for something that's not a Mac, you get something probably twice as fast as a price-comparable Mac. :P

(betasp said @ #4.1)
Yes, but can you buy one...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-...vista,1985.html

I am assuming you are only looking at hardware and not software.


That article is such a joke. Here's why:

Intel Xeon X3360 Yorkfield 2.83GHz x 2 - Nobody, unless you are doing processor intensive tasks that require a xeon processor, needs this. Let alone 2 of them. You can get a quad core for 250usd and it will perform better 99% of the time. cost saved: 800

Kingston HyperX 2 GB ECC FB-DIMM - ECC Memory is not required. cost saved: 70

SYBA 1394a FireWire400 Controller/SYBA 1394b FireWire800 Controller - Yet again another pointless spending because USB is more popular. cost saved: 45

Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate - Who says you need the retail version? You can save over a 100usd by buying the OEM one from Newegg. Plus are you realllly going to use all the business stuff in Ultimate? If not save more money by getting home premium. cost saved: 100

Therefore, the difference is like over a 1000usd. Not just 6 as that article claims.

---

Now if we go to the laptop section. My dell vostro 1700 [2.4ghz, 2gb, 8600M GT, 17in 1920x1200] costed me 1600-1700usd. If I was to build a macbook pro the baseline is 2600, matching specs almost 2900.

I see a huge difference. Happy now?

(/ -Razorfold said @ #1)

That article is such a joke. Here's why:

Intel Xeon X3360 Yorkfield 2.83GHz x 2 - Nobody, unless you are doing processor intensive tasks that require a xeon processor, needs this. Let alone 2 of them. You can get a quad core for 250usd and it will perform better 99% of the time. cost saved: 800

Kingston HyperX 2 GB ECC FB-DIMM - ECC Memory is not required. cost saved: 70

SYBA 1394a FireWire400 Controller/SYBA 1394b FireWire800 Controller - Yet again another pointless spending because USB is more popular. cost saved: 45

Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate - Who says you need the retail version? You can save over a 100usd by buying the OEM one from Newegg. Plus are you realllly going to use all the business stuff in Ultimate? If not save more money by getting home premium. cost saved: 100

Therefore, the difference is like over a 1000usd. Not just 6 as that article claims.

---

Now if we go to the laptop section. My dell vostro 1700 [2.4ghz, 2gb, 8600M GT, 17in 1920x1200] costed me 1600-1700usd. If I was to build a macbook pro the baseline is 2600, matching specs almost 2900.

I see a huge difference. Happy now?

A quad core won't perform better 99% of the time. In fact it probably will never perform better against one xeon X3360 let alone 2 of them.

You probably did not understand the point of the article. I can see you don't need 2 Xeon CPU's and you don't need ECC memory and you use USB instead of firewire but for people who need this (and there are people who need much CPU power perhaps more than two X3360 can give them and use firewire as it is faster than USB) the mac pro or a computer of these specs is a good solution.

Now for normal use (such as photoshop, some gaming, surfing, winamp etc.) your quad core would do fine..

(alex1990 said @ #4)
i can build a pc 3 times better for the same price as a mac.

totally true... the average cost of a Retail entry level PC is ~500... with Vista... just look @ hp/compaq acer and dell

(gianpan said @ #4.4)
A quad core won't perform better 99% of the time. In fact it probably will never perform better against one xeon X3360 let alone 2 of them.

You probably did not understand the point of the article. I can see you don't need 2 Xeon CPU's and you don't need ECC memory and you use USB instead of firewire but for people who need this (and there are people who need much CPU power perhaps more than two X3360 can give them and use firewire as it is faster than USB) the mac pro or a computer of these specs is a good solution.

Now for normal use (such as photoshop, some gaming, surfing, winamp etc.) your quad core would do fine..


Oh really? Xeons are high-end workstation/server processors. They cannot perform any better than a quad-core with stuff like photoshop, gaming, surfing etc because it isn't optimized and nor has it been designed for that usage in mind. So hence 99% of the time [people who buy mac pros don't use them as high-end servers] the quad-core would either perform similarly or better. If you do heavy CAD, large amount of scientific calculations, then you may notice an improvement. But lets be honest here, how many people actually buy xeons or mac pros for that reason?

Don't believe me? Read the reviews of it. Or here I'll post them for you:

Cons: Its nice but not that nice. Not really any noticable improvment from the dual core system I previously had. sale yourself some money and get the highest mhz dual core cpu you can afford and you will be much happier if your using this as a workstation
Other Thoughts: Im just not excited about this processor. Its paired with 4gb of overclocked ddr2 memory an x48 chipset gigabyte motherboard. My old intel motherboard with a dualcore 3ghz is just as fast.

Cons: not a good price/performance buy at only slightly faster than chips roughly half the price. The temp sensor on one of the cores is stuck at 61.


I understood the point of the article, but it is such a ridiculous comparison. If I wanted to buy a high-end computer that runs mac, I would have to buy the mac pro. For the same price as that mac-pro, I can get a MUCH MUCH MUCH better specced computer. The same thing exists with the laptop comparison. My vostro has the exact same specs as the macbook pro, aside from I have 2 hardrives the pro has only 1, and the pro still somehow costs 1000 more.

(/ -Razorfold said @ #4.6)

Oh really? Xeons are high-end workstation/server processors. They cannot perform any better than a quad-core with stuff like photoshop, gaming, surfing etc because it isn't optimized and nor has it been designed for that usage in mind. So hence 99% of the time [people who buy mac pros don't use them as high-end servers] the quad-core would either perform similarly or better. If you do heavy CAD, large amount of scientific calculations, then you may notice an improvement. But lets be honest here, how many people actually buy xeons or mac pros for that reason?

Don't believe me? Read the reviews of it. Or here I'll post them for you:

Cons: Its nice but not that nice. Not really any noticable improvment from the dual core system I previously had. sale yourself some money and get the highest mhz dual core cpu you can afford and you will be much happier if your using this as a workstation
Other Thoughts: Im just not excited about this processor. Its paired with 4gb of overclocked ddr2 memory an x48 chipset gigabyte motherboard. My old intel motherboard with a dualcore 3ghz is just as fast.

Cons: not a good price/performance buy at only slightly faster than chips roughly half the price. The temp sensor on one of the cores is stuck at 61.

I understood the point of the article, but it is such a ridiculous comparison. If I wanted to buy a high-end computer that runs mac, I would have to buy the mac pro. For the same price as that mac-pro, I can get a MUCH MUCH MUCH better specced computer. The same thing exists with the laptop comparison. My vostro has the exact same specs as the macbook pro, aside from I have 2 hardrives the pro has only 1, and the pro still somehow costs 1000 more.

I can't understand why we keep saying the same thing.....

I already said :

Now for normal use (such as photoshop, some gaming, surfing, winamp etc.) your quad core would do fine..

but if you need stuff like 3d rendering etc. then you will really be thankful for choosing the Mac pro.
For the same price as Mac pro you can get a computer that's similar to Mac pro's specifications, as long as you use Xeon processors and not some cheap duo core for photoshop or surfing ;)

but if you need stuff like 3d rendering etc. then you will really be thankful for choosing the Mac pro.
For the same price as Mac pro you can get a computer that's similar to Mac pro's specifications, as long as you use Xeon processors and not some cheap duo core for photoshop or surfing ;)


No you still won't lol. Here you go:

Mac pro - $2,299
2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors (YES SINGLE)
2GB memory (800MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT graphics with 256MB memory
320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
16x double-layer SuperDrive

My build from newegg - $2,214
2.8Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon - $360
G-Skill 2GB memory (800MHz DDR2 4 CAS Latency) - $60
Nvidia Quadro FX1500 - $450
Intel 975x - $150
Auzentech X-Fi Prelude - $175
Coolermaster Black Aluminum Case + 1000W True Watt powersupply - $390
Western Digital VelociRaptor 10000rpm 300gb - $290
Lite-On 20x DVD+/-R - $30
Windows Vista Ultimate - $180
Microsoft Wireless Laser Desktop 7000 - $129

---

My build is cheaper, has faster memory [fine its not EEC but yeh], has a MUCH MUCH MUCH better graphics card, has a dedicated sound card, has a 1000W powersupply hence upgrading will not be a problem, has RAID [Apple charges you $800 for raid], faster hardrive, wireless keyboard/mouse, and a faster optical drive.

Only thing it lacks is firewire, and that can be added in to make it pretty much the same price as the mac pro.

(/ -Razorfold said @ #4.8)

No you still won't lol. Here you go:

Mac pro - $2,299
2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors (YES SINGLE)
2GB memory (800MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT graphics with 256MB memory
320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
16x double-layer SuperDrive

My build from newegg - $2,214
2.8Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon - $360
G-Skill 2GB memory (800MHz DDR2 4 CAS Latency) - $60
Nvidia Quadro FX1500 - $450
Intel 975x - $150
Auzentech X-Fi Prelude - $175
Coolermaster Black Aluminum Case + 1000W True Watt powersupply - $390
Western Digital VelociRaptor 10000rpm 300gb - $290
Lite-On 20x DVD+/-R - $30
Windows Vista Ultimate - $180
Microsoft Wireless Laser Desktop 7000 - $129

---

My build is cheaper, has faster memory [fine its not EEC but yeh], has a MUCH MUCH MUCH better graphics card, has a dedicated sound card, has a 1000W powersupply hence upgrading will not be a problem, has RAID [Apple charges you $800 for raid], faster hardrive, wireless keyboard/mouse, and a faster optical drive.

Only thing it lacks is firewire, and that can be added in to make it pretty much the same price as the mac pro.

fine you conviced us all, people will no longer buy Apple products as they are ridiculously overpriced.

An iMac would be cool though

It's interestign how mac users actually belueve their identical hardware is worth twice as much or even more if they had to.

(HawkMan said @ #3)
It's interestign how mac users actually belueve their identical hardware is worth twice as much or even more if they had to.
An excellent example of someone who doesn't read and understand the article before posting.

They did not compare "identical" or even "similarly configured" hardware. Just compared cost of whatever they bought, so a sale of a $299 PC with crappy hardware gets averaged into the "PC" side to make it a lower cost - even with lower hardware.

(markjensen said @ #3.3)
An excellent example of someone who doesn't read and understand the article before posting.

They did not compare "identical" or even "similarly configured" hardware. Just compared cost of whatever they bought, so a sale of a $299 PC with crappy hardware gets averaged into the "PC" side to make it a lower cost - even with lower hardware.

Actually I did read the article and knowthey never mentioned the specs. btu I wasn't replying to the article directly but the two comments above mine where two users flat out said they'd pay more for Apple just because it's apple.

(HawkMan said @ #3.5)
Actually I did read the article and knowthey never mentioned the specs. btu I wasn't replying to the article directly but the two comments above mine where two users flat out said they'd pay more for Apple just because it's apple.
You clearly compared "identical hardware" with "worth twice as much or even more", which (once again) was not what the article was saying.

It's interestign how mac users actually belueve their identical hardware is worth twice as much or even more if they had to.

So yeah... that's hilarious. I'm a mac user... I know the hardware is overpriced... but I still buy it. You might be sitting there and wondering... why? Here's why... I like Apple. The operating system in my opinion is worth the price of the computer. I like the convenience factor... of taking it out of the box, hitting the power button and going through a setup process that doesn't ask me to accept 2 EULA's, throw special offers to me, install software and 99% of the time get the time zone and system time wrong (the case with most HP's, Acer's, Sony's and Toshiba's I set up at work). Oh and on top of that, why should I have to buy anti-virus software? I know you "don't need it if you know what you're doing", but what about the rest of the world that doesn't? Thats an extra $60+ / year that's unnecessary and adds to the time until your pc's setup is complete.

I could go on for hours and eventually write a book but... oh well. No one listens anyway.

- Mike

(markjensen said @ #3.7)
You clearly compared "identical hardware" with "worth twice as much or even more", which (once again) was not what the article was saying.

But I neversaid I replied to the article, AGAIN.

as I said, I replied to the postersabove me that said they'd pay more for Apple Hardware, identical or not. sheesh

(giantsnyy said @ #3.8)

So yeah... that's hilarious. I'm a mac user... I know the hardware is overpriced... but I still buy it. You might be sitting there and wondering... why? Here's why... I like Apple. The operating system in my opinion is worth the price of the computer. I like the convenience factor... of taking it out of the box, hitting the power button and going through a setup process that doesn't ask me to accept 2 EULA's, throw special offers to me, install software and 99% of the time get the time zone and system time wrong (the case with most HP's, Acer's, Sony's and Toshiba's I set up at work). Oh and on top of that, why should I have to buy anti-virus software? I know you "don't need it if you know what you're doing", but what about the rest of the world that doesn't? Thats an extra $60+ / year that's unnecessary and adds to the time until your pc's setup is complete.

I could go on for hours and eventually write a book but... oh well. No one listens anyway.

- Mike

Funny, when I installed my Acer, and my step fathers HP, I hit the power button, was asked what language I wanted and it did a short setup process and voila I was up and running.I don't recall any EULA's at leats not two of them. and I definately had no issues with time zones or setting time. and they where fairly free ofbloat software.

As for AV, as I said before I don't see the need for AV on any of my current Vista installs. Certainly if you feel the need for an AV on Vista, then you'd need one on OSX as well. afterall it has a substantial lead ofVista (and just counting the time since Vista's release not life) in security issues. So if you want to flame Vista for havign to pay for an AV, then you'll have to apply the same to OSX.

You get what you pay for. I'll gladly pay double the price of a Windows box for my next Mac.

The situation was comparable with the car market, he explained. BMW and Chevy make basically the same product - a car - but the difference in branding, how customers were treated and perceived value allows BMW to charge more.

I'll stick with my BMW

(John S. said @ #2)
You get what you pay for. I'll gladly pay double the price of a Windows box for my next Mac.

The situation was comparable with the car market, he explained. BMW and Chevy make basically the same product - a car - but the difference in branding, how customers were treated and perceived value allows BMW to charge more.

I'll stick with my BMW ;)

You gotta be joking John... first of all you know his analogy is wrong all together , BMW cars cost more for many reasons, stricter QnA, higher quality parts and much more complex building are just a few of the reasons.

Macs and PCs are made of the same parts, their reliability is the same (everyone know by now that mac don't just work) , so why pay double? a better analogy would be designer jeans versus common jeans, they all made in sweatshops but the designer tag allows them to be priced higher.

I rather be smart with money and spend it on other things than shallow and waste it on designer jeans and Apple products.

Personally I'd go with the Toyota that's cheaper than both th BMW and Chevy and has far lower number of problems per 1000 cars. and it looks beter than either too.

(Beastage said @ #2.1)
You gotta be joking John... first of all you know his analogy is wrong all together , BMW cars cost more for many reasons, stricter QnA, higher quality parts and much more complex building are just a few of the reasons.

Macs and PCs are made of the same parts, their reliability is the same (everyone know by now that mac don't just work) , so why pay double? a better analogy would be designer jeans versus common jeans, they all made in sweatshops but the designer tag allows them to be priced higher.

I rather be smart with money and spend it on other things than shallow and waste it on designer jeans and Apple products.

No I'm dead serious. I'll gladly pay the $1700+ for the bottom end 24" iMac once it's updated the next time. In the 14 years I've had computers the last 3.5 have been the least frustrating. Prior to that I've bought IBM, had a custom built, and eventually built my own, but none of them ran as well and care free as my current iMac.

(John S. said @ #2.3)
No I'm dead serious. I'll gladly pay the $1700+ for the bottom end 24" iMac once it's updated the next time. In the 14 years I've had computers the last 3.5 have been the least frustrating. Prior to that I've bought IBM, had a custom built, and eventually built my own, but none of them ran as well and care free as my current iMac.

And this is obviusly becase it's aMac? not because computers in general and system software as well as software in general have matured over the last years ? because XP SP2 and Vista on good ahrdware isdefinately fairly carefree.

Frankly I don't think this is because it'sa Mac but because it's quality hardware on more mature software. Something you get fromany PC Vendor today.

(HawkMan said @ #2.4)
And this is obviusly becase it's aMac? not because computers in general and system software as well as software in general have matured over the last years ? because XP SP2 and Vista on good ahrdware isdefinately fairly carefree.

Frankly I don't think this is because it'sa Mac but because it's quality hardware on more mature software. Something you get fromany PC Vendor today.

I've used XP from Whistler to SP2, I have to use Vista at work, but I much prefer OS X and choose to support the company that makes it. I'd much rather have a Mac.

(instant.human said @ #1)
firstly, i pay 999€ for a macbook.
secondly, an average windows pc is not comparable to a mac pro or an imac.

just for the record.
=)

take them apart... same parts! so they are quite comparable. and the software by itself not worth twice as much when sold separately ... so WHY does the whole machines cost so much?

(Flae_qui said @ #1.3)

take them apart... same parts! so they are quite comparable. and the software by itself not worth twice as much when sold separately ... so WHY does the whole machines cost so much?


Build quality, reliability, and no doubt I'll get hounded for no good reason for this, security. Using Windows can be such a pain if you don't have everything set just so. And this isn't necessarily Microsoft's fault - hardware vendors are still distributing faulty drivers. By itself, Vista is a very good OS, but getting all of your hardware to work all of the time is almost impossible. On a Mac, it literally does "just work", at least in comparison to the setup process required for Windows, and for me the extra cost for my iMac has been worth it.

(acxz said @ #1.4)

Build quality, reliability, and no doubt I'll get hounded for no good reason for this, security. Using Windows can be such a pain if you don't have everything set just so. And this isn't necessarily Microsoft's fault - hardware vendors are still distributing faulty drivers. By itself, Vista is a very good OS, but getting all of your hardware to work all of the time is almost impossible. On a Mac, it literally does "just work", at least in comparison to the setup process required for Windows, and for me the extra cost for my iMac has been worth it.

When was the last time you actually installed windows ? NT4.0 ?

try installign Vista or even XP. Vista isprobably the easiest OS install ever, and the fastest.

as for security .. a liiiiitle behind the times are we ? your posts reads and the reasons in it read like it was made in 2001.

(HawkMan said @ #1.5)
When was the last time you actually installed windows ? NT4.0 ?

try installign Vista or even XP. Vista isprobably the easiest OS install ever, and the fastest.

as for security .. a liiiiitle behind the times are we ? your posts reads and the reasons in it read like it was made in 2001.


???

I installed Vista SP1 on my laptop last week, thanks. But that was followed by a nice 2 hour spell of updating, then installing and configuring hardware, which I just don't need in my life.

Mac OS X is more secure than Windows. Now, I don't care whether this is because people can't be bothered to make viruses for OS X, or whether it is genuinely because the UNIX platform is just so secure. All I know is it means I don't need Windows Firewall, Windows Defender, NOD32, and god knows what else running in the background just to make sure I'm safe. An OS should do all this for you without needing extra software installed over the top.

(acxz said @ #1.6)
An OS should do all this for you without needing extra software installed over the top.

yea right.. and you can screw MS again saying that you cant bundle softwares with operating system. go get a life.

did you ever try upgrading hadware on MAC? oh sorry.. i forgot.. you will have to wait until your steve the "great" makes a new version of OS.

(coolkat007 said @ #1)
did you ever try upgrading hadware on MAC? oh sorry.. i forgot.. you will have to wait until your steve the "great" makes a new version of OS.

Ohh.. that's another good 'misconception' that I would LOVE to dispel. As a matter of fact, yes. I do upgrade my hardware, on a regular basis, with off-the-shelf parts. To date, on my Mac Pro, I have swapped out the video card once, added two hard drives, and more ram. Keep in mind, these are not 'special apple parts'. This is off the shelf hardware.

Also, I have upgraded the ram AND THE HARD DRIVE in my MacBook Pro. This was tricky, and definitely not for the average consumer, but that's pretty standard as far as notebooks go.

So please, don't say you can't upgrade macs. That's being ignorant, stupid, misinformed or fanboyish.

Misconceptions to dispel:

  • Mac's don't crash. (They do, for the same reasons as windows -- faulty 3rd party hardware and drivers)
  • There are no viruses for macs. (There are a few, most are now benign, and none are particularly newsworthy)
  • You can't pirate software on macs. (Perhaps even more easily. Same channels as for PC software)
  • Windows disks (usb, hd, dvd, etc) don't work in macs. (Generally, they all do, unless you're running a IIe :P )

(cyberdrone2000 said @ #1.8)

Ohh.. that's another good 'misconception' that I would LOVE to dispel. As a matter of fact, yes. I do upgrade my hardware, on a regular basis, with off-the-shelf parts. To date, on my Mac Pro, I have swapped out the video card once, added two hard drives, and more ram. Keep in mind, these are not 'special apple parts'. This is off the shelf hardware.

Also, I have upgraded the ram AND THE HARD DRIVE in my MacBook Pro. This was tricky, and definitely not for the average consumer, but that's pretty standard as far as notebooks go.

So please, don't say you can't upgrade macs. That's being ignorant, stupid, misinformed or fanboyish.

Misconceptions to dispel:

  • Mac's don't crash. (They do, for the same reasons as windows -- faulty 3rd party hardware and drivers)
  • There are no viruses for macs. (There are a few, most are now benign, and none are particularly newsworthy)
  • You can't pirate software on macs. (Perhaps even more easily. Same channels as for PC software)
  • Windows disks (usb, hd, dvd, etc) don't work in macs. (Generally, they all do, unless you're running a IIe :P )

HDD and RAM upgrade doesnot need drivers! get a latest ethernet card or may be some hardware new in the market (internal pci similar to graphics card) then come back here and bash.. oh.. did i mention processor and chipset upgrades?

(coolkat007 said @ #1.9)
HDD and RAM upgrade doesnot need drivers! get a latest ethernet card or may be some hardware new in the market (internal pci similar to graphics card) then come back here and bash.. oh.. did i mention processor and chipset upgrades?

Chipset upgrades? Unless you own a motherboard manufacturing facility, I doubt you can upgrade your chipset. Motherboard, yes, perhaps. But even on a Windows machine, you won't be swapping out your motherboard that often. Usually you might if you wanted to upgrade to a CPU with a newer socket/chipset requirement, and if that was the case, then you're paying $600 to upgrade (assuming new, high-end hardware).

Odds are, if you're getting a new Mobo/CPU, you'd be getting newer/faster RAM, and maybe a new graphics card to take your set-up to the next level... oh, and what's this? We've basically just built ourselves a new computer.

Sure, you might do a motherboard swap without upgrading your video card or RAM once or twice in your lifetime, but honestly, it happens rarely enough to be a moot point anyways.

Also, I've used some off the shelf nics in my Mac Pro before as well (used it as a gateway/server at one point). They worked fine, out of the box (didn't even have to install drivers). Most sound cards I've seen also have drivers for Mac OS X, or are supported by the OS's built in drivers, too.

Keep in mind, you would need to majorly overhaul your system as well to support "some hardware new in the market". That would require a new motherboard, and we're back to square one with having to upgrade other parts of your system as well.

(cyberdrone2000 said @ #1.10)

Chipset upgrades? Unless you own a motherboard manufacturing facility, I doubt you can upgrade your chipset. Motherboard, yes, perhaps. But even on a Windows machine, you won't be swapping out your motherboard that often. Usually you might if you wanted to upgrade to a CPU with a newer socket/chipset requirement, and if that was the case, then you're paying $600 to upgrade (assuming new, high-end hardware).

Odds are, if you're getting a new Mobo/CPU, you'd be getting newer/faster RAM, and maybe a new graphics card to take your set-up to the next level... oh, and what's this? We've basically just built ourselves a new computer.

Sure, you might do a motherboard swap without upgrading your video card or RAM once or twice in your lifetime, but honestly, it happens rarely enough to be a moot point anyways.

Also, I've used some off the shelf nics in my Mac Pro before as well (used it as a gateway/server at one point). They worked fine, out of the box (didn't even have to install drivers). Most sound cards I've seen also have drivers for Mac OS X, or are supported by the OS's built in drivers, too.

Keep in mind, you would need to majorly overhaul your system as well to support "some hardware new in the market". That would require a new motherboard, and we're back to square one with having to upgrade other parts of your system as well.

odds of getting a new graphics card.. RAM with motherboard is not as high as you think. again.. i cant expect this from a mac user as what you do is chuck you old system completely to just have a new motherboard.

windows has more built-in drivers than mac! the prob of windows users needing a driver disc is less than mac users. even if you have drivers built into your ****ty Os, you realize that you need to install them, right? otherwise its plain security issue if your OS dont tell you that a new hardware is installed. new in market hardware does not need major overhaul.. jesus!!

chipset upgrades not necessarly mean hardware wise.. driver updates are common. if there is a flaw in a driver, what we simply do is get updated driver but i guess its alien thing to you. live with flaws.

(coolkat007 said @ #1.11)

odds of getting a new graphics card.. RAM with motherboard is not as high as you think. again.. i cant expect this from a mac user as what you do is chuck you old system completely to just have a new motherboard.

windows has more built-in drivers than mac! the prob of windows users needing a driver disc is less than mac users. even if you have drivers built into your ****ty Os, you realize that you need to install them, right? otherwise its plain security issue if your OS dont tell you that a new hardware is installed. new in market hardware does not need major overhaul.. jesus!!

chipset upgrades not necessarly mean hardware wise.. driver updates are common. if there is a flaw in a driver, what we simply do is get updated driver but i guess its alien thing to you. live with flaws.

Actually, the odds are quite high, as before I had the three macs I have now, I'd been using microsoft OS's since MS-DOS 4, possibly older. During that time, the number of times I upgraded my motherboard without majorly overhauling my systems was twice. I'd say this goes for even less with the majority of PC users as well, since you and I are not necessarily average computer users. The majority of people throw away a complete, working computer system the minute it gets slow (due to software issues entirely) be it Windows or Mac.

I've never once had to install drivers on my computer. Even printers and other high-level peripherals. It's not a security issue either, as each and every one of these drivers has been carefully inspected to pass Apple's QA process. It's nice to know that your OS doesn't need to tell you that you have new hardware, because you know that it's already working, the minute you turn your computer on. It's the same with many of the *nix operating systems I've worked with as well.

Think twice before calling operating systems ***ty, because it makes you look childish. I was hoping for someone who could keep a civil debate going, without resorting to name calling, but your true colours are quite apparent.

The fanboy rears his ugly head again, and I will have no further part in this.
Computers are tools, plain and simple. You're free to have your opinions about windows and mac, and choose the OEM that has the tools and software you need, and I will too.

It's a pity you have neither the brains, nor the humility to admit that.

(Flae_qui said @ #1.3)

take them apart... same parts! so they are quite comparable. and the software by itself not worth twice as much when sold separately ... so WHY does the whole machines cost so much?


design, and, speaking for the imac, the built-in display (which is not a bad one btw.).

the mac pro is not an average pc. its a workhorse. so you should not compare it to "average pcs".

(coolkat007 said @ #1.7)

yea right.. and you can screw MS again saying that you cant bundle softwares with operating system. go get a life.

did you ever try upgrading hadware on MAC? oh sorry.. i forgot.. you will have to wait until your steve the "great" makes a new version of OS.


The question is, do I need to upgrade my Mac? If I wanted to buy a computer KNOWING I would need to upgrade it so it can run the latest OS I wouldn't have bothered with a Mac.

(acxz said @ #1.6)
I installed Vista SP1 on my laptop last week, thanks. But that was followed by a nice 2 hour spell of updating, then installing and configuring hardware, which I just don't need in my life.

Mac OS X is more secure than Windows. Now, I don't care whether this is because people can't be bothered to make viruses for OS X, or whether it is genuinely because the UNIX platform is just so secure.

Since Vistas releaseApple has had far mroe security updates than vista. and no OSX is not more secure than vista, I have yet to see an actualy working Vista security issue/threat that actually works, without the user doign stupid things or disabling security fucntions on the OS and then doing practially manually runningthe Virus. There have actually been more serius threats on OSX since Vista's release. so the udpate thing is a bit stupid since Apple would need just as many, more in fact, updates. and no comparedto the NT5/6 core Unix is not "so secure",they're about the same actually.

And why would you need to intsall and configure hardware you don't need in your life? why do you thenhave the hardware int he first place?

Again your post reeks of outdated information, as if it was written in 2001 or something. you sound completely oblivius to the realities of today.

As for a firewall. I woudl strongly suggest runnign a firewall on your OSX considering it's current history of security issues. afirewall isn't there to fix holes in the OS. But to protect the OS against holes in your applications, and if necessary to protect against whatever holes theOS does have untill they're found and fixed, since no OS is fully secure. andit's not to protect against viruses but also Intrusions done by automated attack systems or hackers. There may not be any real viruses ofany threat to OSX, but it's definately not safe from a skilled hacker.

Also none of my vista systems currently run a AV, not something I'd reccomend for the average user, on ANY OS, but for me I don't seeany need at the moment. on the same token I don't actually need defender though you don't actually seem to know what Defender's purpose is.


In any case if you think an OS shoudl do all this for you, unix, OSX,linux and all those are not for you, you still need firewalls and AV on those as well, at least as much as you do on Vista.

(HawkMan said @ #1.15)

Since Vistas releaseApple has had far mroe security updates than vista. and no OSX is not more secure than vista, I have yet to see an actualy working Vista security issue/threat that actually works, without the user doign stupid things or disabling security fucntions on the OS and then doing practially manually runningthe Virus. There have actually been more serius threats on OSX since Vista's release. so the udpate thing is a bit stupid since Apple would need just as many, more in fact, updates. and no comparedto the NT5/6 core Unix is not "so secure",they're about the same actually.

And why would you need to intsall and configure hardware you don't need in your life? why do you thenhave the hardware int he first place?

Again your post reeks of outdated information, as if it was written in 2001 or something. you sound completely oblivius to the realities of today.

As for a firewall. I woudl strongly suggest runnign a firewall on your OSX considering it's current history of security issues. afirewall isn't there to fix holes in the OS. But to protect the OS against holes in your applications, and if necessary to protect against whatever holes theOS does have untill they're found and fixed, since no OS is fully secure. andit's not to protect against viruses but also Intrusions done by automated attack systems or hackers. There may not be any real viruses ofany threat to OSX, but it's definately not safe from a skilled hacker.

Also none of my vista systems currently run a AV, not something I'd reccomend for the average user, on ANY OS, but for me I don't seeany need at the moment. on the same token I don't actually need defender though you don't actually seem to know what Defender's purpose is.


In any case if you think an OS shoudl do all this for you, unix, OSX,linux and all those are not for you, you still need firewalls and AV on those as well, at least as much as you do on Vista.

"I have yet to see an actualy working Vista security issue/threat that actually works, without the user doign stupid things or disabling security fucntions on the OS and then doing practially manually runningthe Virus" - same case for OS X.

"And why would you need to intsall and configure hardware you don't need in your life? why do you thenhave the hardware int he first place? " - when did I say anything about configuring hardware I didn't need? I need everything that comes on my laptop. That's why I bought it. But having to get things just right so the system doesn't BSOD is a ridiculous idea. Things should just work out of the box.

"As for a firewall. I woudl strongly suggest runnign a firewall on your OSX considering it's current history of security issues. afirewall isn't there to fix holes in the OS...." - I already use the Firewall in OS X, thanks. I do know some things about technology. I wouldn't be here if I didn't.

"on the same token I don't actually need defender though you don't actually seem to know what Defender's purpose is." - you must be the exact opposite of a genius to arrive at that conclusion from my comments on this newspost.

(acxz said @ #1.16)
"I have yet to see an actualy working Vista security issue/threat that actually works, without the user doign stupid things or disabling security fucntions on the OS and then doing practially manually runningthe Virus" - same case for OS X.

"And why would you need to intsall and configure hardware you don't need in your life? why do you thenhave the hardware int he first place? " - when did I say anything about configuring hardware I didn't need? I need everything that comes on my laptop. That's why I bought it. But having to get things just right so the system doesn't BSOD is a ridiculous idea. Things should just work out of the box.

"As for a firewall. I woudl strongly suggest runnign a firewall on your OSX considering it's current history of security issues. afirewall isn't there to fix holes in the OS...." - I already use the Firewall in OS X, thanks. I do know some things about technology. I wouldn't be here if I didn't.

"on the same token I don't actually need defender though you don't actually seem to know what Defender's purpose is." - you must be the exact opposite of a genius to arrive at that conclusion from my comments on this newspost.

So you use thefirewall on your OSX do you. let me quote you:
"All I know is it means I don't need Windows Firewall"
So why exactly is it you shoudln't need a firewall in windows when you're perfectly ok with using it in OSX then ?

And i you need to do anything special for yourhardware to not BSOD, I'd suggest returnign yoru laptop and ask for one that's nto faulty. with Vista, andcertainly by now, pretty much all hardware comes with WHQL certified pre installed or ion windows update, these drivers work just fine and won't cause a BSOD on working hardware. Though you may be getting a bit better performance and features by getting the latest drivers direct fro the hardware maker. in wich case they may or may not be WHQL yet. Either way you shouldn't need to hunt around for drivers to avoid BSOD's. And cosnidering how rare BSOD's are on Vista anyway and that you have to dosomething spectacuarly stupid to encourage one...

And for yourfirst point, that was thepoint I was trying to make. congratulatons you almost got it, untill you quoted it to try and sound smart....

and got job on the attempt at hidden namecalling there.

But since I apparently need to spell things out for you word by word, or spoon feed it to you as we say here.

My point was that OSX is not superior to Vista, not on security (Where it's track record is worse) and not in Stability where they're about on par, with both being stable OS' that can be brought down by bad hardware or bad drivers, but both comes with a solid set of tested drivers.

Well, it's like I've always said...you will always pay 2 or 3 hundred dollars extra, just for that little apple logo. These days, when you buy an Apple, you're just buying an overpriced PC anyway.