Mac's - are they overpriced?

[NienorGT]

reading treads like this give me headhaches

Seriously... Get over it people, if you think it's over priced don't buy it and don't care about it. It ends here, seriously it's not by acting like kids that you will make something usefull...

[Quillz]

Yeah, that shininess will really help you get the job done (Y) :rolleyes:

I take it you've never used Compiz-Fusion. It's very useful, although it can be overloaded with eye candy. But it has Expose, Flip-3d, Alt+Tab, etc. Use it for a good while and you'll find that it really is better than either Aero or Aqua.

[chrisj1968]

I agree that you do pay a slight premium for buying into the Apple brand. But, at the end of the day, Apple don't make cheap computers out of ****ty plastic. Your paying for the Apple brand, the whole 'package' so to speak. No other computer manufacturer makes computers like Apple do. The only PC manufacturer that comes close is Alienware - and we all now how expensive they are. I know some are higher spec but its still horrible plastic and not very environmentally friendly. Despite Apple stuff costing a bit more (even iPods cost more than the equivalent) I will never buy a 'generic' PC again.

Dell = Ford

Apple = Ferrari

that's where the problem lies. it sort of is designed (apple mac promotion) to separate the PC crowd from the Mac crowd. that being said, I also find it hilarious that Apple even thinks it can distinguish itself from the PC crowd by adopting x86 hardware. this leads me to believe that the old mac architecture, the G series processors by IBM in partnership was "supposed" to reach 3Ghz. it was retired in 2006 in favor of the intel processor.

so all you are getting is a pretty package, simple hardware with an intel x86 processor for a hefty mortgage payment. It's really a matter wanting to be in the Mac high society or not.

added: Steve jobs touted that the G5 processor was the fastest computer ever built. but it got retired a year later. :laugh:

Source: POWER Mac G5 wiki

If Apple wanted to distinguish itself, it would stop partnering with the likes of IBM(G processors of the past) and Intel and innovate something itself. with that in mind it will never be anything but a pretty package job for a high price

Edited December 3, 2008 by ChrisJ1968

[-T- Member]

I admit I paid more than I could have for my mac compared to a similarly specced pc, but the overall package and setup is worth it for me in my opinion.

[Windows7even]

I agree that you do pay a slight premium for buying into the Apple brand. But, at the end of the day, Apple don't make cheap computers out of ****ty plastic. Your paying for the Apple brand, the whole 'package' so to speak. No other computer manufacturer makes computers like Apple do. The only PC manufacturer that comes close is Alienware - and we all now how expensive they are. I know some are higher spec but its still horrible plastic and not very environmentally friendly. Despite Apple stuff costing a bit more (even iPods cost more than the equivalent) I will never buy a 'generic' PC again.

Dell = Ford

Apple = Ferrari

Dell Core i7=Shelby SSC Aero

Apple=Chevrolet Chevette

[1759]

For what I paid for my Mini a year ago (the price hasn't decreased since then), I got a T5600 C2D, 1 GB, 80 GB, 802.11g, BT, CD burner, and GMA 950 graphics, and Leopard, whereas I just bought my Mom a Dell Inspiron 530 with a E7300 C2D, DVD burner, 4 GB, 640 GB, GMA x3100 graphics, and Vista x64 for the same price ($600).

I've no issues with Leopard or Vista recently, but Apple does skimp on HW, across all their lines, but they do make small computers.

[NienorGT]

No doubt, Mac Mini are completely outdated and the cost is really high. The Dell Inspiron 530 Slim is a better choice and it's not "that" bigger to make a problem.

But I don't agree on the "all across their lines" The New MacBooks are pretty awesome in hardware, design and cost.

[temple_treefrog]

I've been a Mac user since late 2006 and I'm very happy with my iMac.

Recently I built a PC for a friend of mine with the latest Core 2 Quad (45nm), 4GB RAM etc. and the performance was incredible for such a low price.

[White Cuban]

If you overprice something, it makes it look like Macs are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than PCs. Why would Apple price them such way if it wasn't?

im going to stop right there.

im sorry, that line was an significant amount of stupidity i couldn't ignore it.

what the f* is it related? i dont see how it makes it look better, just more expensive, its like alienware, overpriced Crap(With Garu-nteeed! stamps on the ofc)

[fix-this!]

i was at the apple store last night looking at them. to put it simply, YES all apple products are too overpriced. im not going to pay $2000 for a laptop with less specs than the hp i bought for $600. if i want to try out leopard, ill just install osx86.

[justlooking]

It's called snob appeal. I saw Textured Soy Protein in the supermarket for 99 cents and some yuppies I know rejected it as cheap garbage. When they saw the same TSP in a fancy, smaller package at 3x the cost, they viewed it as an amazing, nutritious product!

[LTD]

ill just install osx86.

Here's what you'll face, if you know what you're doing:

- Not all functions are supported. Sleep mode — which puts the system into a state that consumes only a few watts of power — works only in exceptional cases, when all the relevant kernel extensions are available.

- Software Updates: Although most Mac OS updates work, those affecting the core operating system (kernel) are often incompatible. For instance, system crashes, which is very difficult to repair. Changes to key drivers following an update may also prevent Mac OS from starting up on a standard PC. Get ready to hunt down custom updates/patches, compiled by the osx86 community. You'll be relying on these third parties.

- Bootcamp: Installing Windows using Boot Camp does not work either.

- Notebooks: Whatever the difficulties involved in installing and setting up Mac OS on a desktop PC, the situation is usually exacerbated on a notebook - for example, it's not usually possible to replace a graphics accelerator or a network chip.

- Sound (speakers/mic): This is one of the features that isn't so easy to get working.

- Hardware: Part of the trick is making sure your all your hardware is compatible. Notebook users, beware.

You'll need to do your homework, spend time learning about osx86 and the optimal hardware required (you might be screwed if you try it on a notebook), deal with problems, hunt down fixes for these problems, and so on.

Be prepared to become a regular on the Insanelymac forums.

Let us know how you make out.

(Of course, you could always get one of those semi-functional rigs from Psystar . . . while they're still in business. Better hurry! :laugh: )

Edited December 7, 2008 by LTD

[fix-this!]

Here's what you'll face, if you know what you're doing:

- Not all functions are supported. Sleep mode ? which puts the system into a state that consumes only a few watts of power ? works only in exceptional cases, when all the relevant kernel extensions are available.

- Software Updates: Although most Mac OS updates work, those affecting the core operating system (kernel) are often incompatible. For instance, system crashes, which is very difficult to repair. Changes to key drivers following an update may also prevent Mac OS from starting up on a standard PC. Get ready to hunt down custom updates/patches, compiled by the osx86 community. You'll be relying on these third parties.

- Bootcamp: Installing Windows using Boot Camp does not work either.

- Notebooks: Whatever the difficulties involved in installing and setting up Mac OS on a desktop PC, the situation is usually exacerbated on a notebook - for example, it's not usually possible to replace a graphics accelerator or a network chip.

- Sound (speakers/mic): This is one of the features that isn't so easy to get working.

- Hardware: Part of the trick is making sure your all your hardware is compatible. Notebook users, beware.

You'll need to do your homework, spend time learning about osx86 and the optimal hardware required (you might be screwed if you try it on a notebook), deal with problems, hunt down fixes for these problems, and so on.

Be prepared to become a regular on the Insanelymac forums.

Let us know how you make out.

(Of course, you could always get one of those semi-functional rigs from Psystar . . . while they're still in business. Better hurry:laugh:ugh: )

ive already played with osx86 and i don't find it that interesting to be honest. linux & vista are just fine for me.

[jbarcus81]

It's called snob appeal. I saw Textured Soy Protein in the supermarket for 99 cents and some yuppies I know rejected it as cheap garbage. When they saw the same TSP in a fancy, smaller package at 3x the cost, they viewed it as an amazing, nutritious product!

100% agree... I'm sure a Mac is nice.. but I feel it's more status... "I have a Mac, I'm better than you" is really what I see when someone says they have a Mac.. I have a PC that cost WELL below the lowest priced G5 yet performance is better than the Mac.. thanks.. but no thanks Apple...

[NienorGT]

i was at the apple store last night looking at them. to put it simply, YES all apple products are too overpriced. im not going to pay $2000 for a laptop with less specs than the hp i bought for $600. if i want to try out leopard, ill just install osx86.

Hey Hey Hey... Link me that HP Laptop please!

[fix-this!]

Hey Hey Hey... Link me that HP Laptop please!

i actually got it on sale at walmart in early september. despite what people say walmart has some great deals on laptops and desktops " brand name ones too " hp, dell , toshiba.....etc.

[sanctified Veteran]

I dont think they are overpriced. Macs generally last more than PCs. The closed hardware approach low them to code their OS for specific models and that has helped a lot of vintage systems. To this date many very old macs are still working. I know the same can be said about PCs but honestly, and this is based on experience and some other testimonials around the net, the percentage of olds pcs working are lower than the proportional on on Macs. Macs have longer life.

Also, target markets are quite different. The pc users usually like and want to upgrade everything, specially gamers. In the other hand, and again thanks to their closed hardware approach, Macs can go a long way without upgrades other than the ocassional RAM upgrade.

Im not saying that Macs are better than PCs. Im just saying that they have a clearly different philosophy. Macs can be expensive at the beggining but cheap in the long term if you take proper care to them.

[fix-this!]

I dont think they are overpriced. Macs generally last more than PCs.

you don't ? :huh:

they do ? :rolleyes:

there is nothing better about a "apple" built system in comparison to a pc and im talking about hardware, not the software.

[Mercellus]

you don't ? :huh:

they do ? :rolleyes:

there is nothing better about a "apple" built system in comparison to a pc and im talking about hardware, not the software.

The closed approach means that Apple chooses what components go in every Mac, and they are of high quality, where as with a lot of PCs it's basically mix and match.

[sanctified Veteran]

you don't ? :huh:

they do ? :rolleyes:

there is nothing better about a "apple" built system in comparison to a pc and im talking about hardware, not the software.

Again, you are comparing apples (no pun intended) to oranges. I never said the hardware was better, I just said that its handled differently by its software, again thanks to the closed hardware philosophy.

Here is an example: Tiger, released on 2005 ran perfectly on a 400 mhz G3 with just a RAM upgrade, giving new life to old equipments. Vista, released a year later, ran barely on a 1GHZ pc. Leopard, released a year later to Vista, run great on a 867 mhz G4 processor if you have more than 512 of RAM.

This doesnt make Vista worse than Tiger, they just have different priorities. Vista is designed to support a LOT more hardware configurations, is more univeral, while Tiger and any other OS X iteration has been made for just a few specific configurations, is optimized for them.

You cant ignore the software factor when talking about hardware since software is how you interact with the hardware. Apple's handling of their specific configurations allow them to support and give new life to older and slow systems. That is my point.

And in the end, this all "my system is "better" than yours" sound childish. Each system and user has different needs and uses. There is no sin to accept that Apple hardware can last longer just as there is no sin to accept that Windows based computers have a LOT more options of upgradeablitity. For me this "your system sucks" diatribe is a little childish.

[thealexweb]

virus free environment, superior graphics (not only games)

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to stop you there

1. It has already been proved that Vista is the most secure OS.

2. The number of viruses for Macs rose by 1300% last year online.

3. Graphics for Macs are just dreadful and theres no denying that.

[sanctified Veteran]

2. The number of viruses for Macs rose by 1300% last year online.

Not that I dont believe you, but whats your source? Im asking because Im yet to get a virus on my machine.

[NienorGT]

i actually got it on sale at walmart in early september. despite what people say walmart has some great deals on laptops and desktops " brand name ones too " hp, dell , toshiba.....etc.

Don't say that Mac are overpriced based on some random deals...

Compare real price in both full prices.

Still, give me some links! Prove me that I overpaid my $1300 MacBook.

Stop saying stuff in air people, start showing why you say the truth with real stuff that we can compare.

(I repeat, only MSRP can be compared, period, even it there a rebate on the maker's site.)

[DavidM]

Don't say that Mac are overpriced based on some random deals...

Compare real price in both full prices.

Still, give me some links! Prove me that I overpaid my $1300 MacBook.

Stop saying stuff in air people, start showing why you say the truth with real stuff that we can compare.

(I repeat, only MSRP can be compared, period, even it there a rebate on the maker's site.)

No one can prove YOU over paid for your $1300 Macbook. That's not the question. If you feel you got your moneys worth, then you didn't over pay. It doesn't matter what anyone says or what price sheet they present. Was you Macbook worth $1300 to YOU? Then who gives a crap that some random person on the net says?

Would I pay $1300 for any laptop? NO. Why? Because to me a $400 netbook can do the same things - surf the net, little data stuff, listen to music AND they are lighter and smaller. I don't use my laptop for anything but what I listed above and with Linux running I get the same virus free environment as the Mac. So are you ready, TO ME they are overpriced. Will my netbook last as long as your Macbook? May be, may be not, but I still have $900 to go buy 2 more, and still have some cash on hand.

Anyway, hope you Apple owners love you Macs/Macbooks and you others enjoy what ever you buy.

[fix-this!]

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to stop you there

1. It has already been proved that Vista is the most secure OS.

2. The number of viruses for Macs rose by 1300% last year online.

3. Graphics for Macs are just dreadful and theres no denying that.

in a few years apple & linux will both require antivirus software and such. i do agree that vista is pretty secure now, performs well too.