Mac's - are they overpriced?


Recommended Posts

This whole thread has descended into a semi-flamewar that is based on generalities and vague assumptions.

I bought a Mac because I simply couldn't stand working in a Windows environment anymore. And OS X at the time seemed to be a great fit for me. It's in line with my philosophy about how computing should take place, and what it should mean to a person. It's in keeping with what I find most important in hardware and an OS. It has nothing to do with money, or even style. It's about tastes and beliefs. For me, if function isn't wrapped in effective form/design, then I won't be interested in using those functions. It's about the WHOLE package. I want a family of hardware/devices that work seamlessly together, and that require very little work on my part to maintain.

Has nothing to do with me being "stylish" or "rich." I just took longer to save up for an Apple product. If you want something and it costs more, you'll need to be a little more patient and put aside a little more money. It may not take long, or it may take quite a while. It's all relative.

All my PCs work seamlessly together with no HW or SW issues. Its all about what hardware you install on your PC. If you you cheap no name brand hardware, then you will have issues. Macs are nice as they use all name brand hardware and everything is setup and configured to work specifically with a Mac.

I have a Lenovo T61 laptop that I got for free brand new. (attended a sales meeting hosted by Lenovo). Granted the Lenovo isnt all shiny, but I like the dull look to it and its a really good/sturdy notebook. I am also running Windows Vista Business on the laptop and it doesnt have a "Vista Compatible" sticker on it either. Vista is running great and no issues. My lenovo has a Vista rating of 3.7 while my brand new work laptop (Dell e6400) has a rating of 3.4. But i am getting off topic...:)

Well, it does tend to attract that particular demographic, I'll give you that.

I find that whenever I walk into my local Apple Store (it's usually pretty busy), I see a lot of women - younger professional types, and good looking, too. That's interesting.

Maybe that backs up what I said earlier on, stylish hardware for stylish, rich and or professional customers (Y)

lenovo_w500.jpg

Vs

macbook1black20061108.jpg

How can it be compared. Lenovo = Ugly. Apple MacBook = Style.

I didnt buy it for the looks. I am an architect student. The entire system was designed for business 3d rendering. A mac would not be powerful enough to run Revit, and I would have to run it in bootcamp at that. I really dont need stylish honestly. But to make you happy I was going to buy a mac in the first place, but the specs didnt meet my needs. I was just merely pointing out how you could get way better specs for the same cost of the lower specs apple puts in their computers.

"Computing" is not a hard thing or important thing to me, unlike LTD. I have owned macs and windows computers so I am not biased towards either one. It is only a computer.

This whole thread has descended into a semi-flamewar that is based on generalities and vague assumptions.

I bought a Mac because I simply couldn't stand working in a Windows environment anymore. And OS X at the time seemed to be a great fit for me. It's in line with my philosophy about how computing should take place, and what it should mean to a person. It's in keeping with what I find most important in hardware and an OS. It has nothing to do with money, or even style. It's about tastes and beliefs. For me, if function isn't wrapped in effective form/design, then I won't be interested in using those functions. It's about the WHOLE package. I want a family of hardware/devices that work seamlessly together, and that require very little work on my part to maintain.

Has nothing to do with me being "stylish" or "rich." I just took longer to save up for an Apple product. If you want something and it costs more, you'll need to be a little more patient and put aside a little more money. It may not take long, or it may take quite a while. It's all relative.

I agree with you LTD, one of the reasons why I decided to purchase a Mac was because it was designed and engineered both from the hardware and the software to work together seamlessly. I used to be a PC enthusiast but I found that over time I stopped caring about exactly how things worked because it was becoming frustrating troubleshooting issues and whatnot, I wanted something that I could come home to and not want to sit there and have a screaming match with it for 10 minutes because of <insert random issue here>.

I'd hardly call it seamless. I've been holding out on buying an Aluminum Macbook just because of all the issues people are reporting on macrumors, notebookreview, and appleinsider forums with GPU overheating, black screens of death, external displays not working, slanted keys, high temperatures, etc (not even considering the boot camp trackpad problems which Apple doesn't even care about). I've never seen a line of laptops released with so many quality control issues. I was also an owner of the original white Macbook which quickly showed cracking plastics and browning palmrests, which I then immediately sold for a Sony Vaio that has had NO problems at all. I suppose the old adage applies here, fool me once...

I'd hardly call it seamless. I've been holding out on buying an Aluminum Macbook just because of all the issues people are reporting on macrumors, notebookreview, and appleinsider forums with GPU overheating, black screens of death, external displays not working, slanted keys, high temperatures, etc. I've never seen a line of laptops released with so many quality control issues. I was also an owner of the original white Macbook which quickly showed cracking plastics and browning palmrests, which I then immediately sold for a Sony Vaio that has had NO problems at all. I suppose the old adage applies here, fool me once...

You can't go by what you see on an internet forum, it's due to be biased towards customers with issues, you rarely hear from those with no issues.

For the record, my MacBook Pro has not had any issues with the graphics processing unit (GPU) overheating, no black screens of death, no slanted keys, and I have an external display connected from the Mini-DisplayPort to DVI connector working just fine. The only issue I have ever had with it was a kernel panic, which upon further investigation was my own fault as I was changing some settings related to power management through the Terminal, so that cannot be blamed on Apple.

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.

So is that why the new alu MB's have issues using 4 GB of RAM, or some have the same faulty Nvidia GPUs as other PC OEMs? Apple uses custom motherboards, but the major components (CPU, GPU, RAM, HD, wifi/BT radios) are the same you can buy and use in any other PC for less.

But you're paying more for the Apple name, the form factor, and the ability to run OSX legally. The HW is really nothing worth writing home about even the Mac Pro, as most people just don't need server-class components in a workstation. For everything else, Apple can only produce a laptop in a different case. I'm quite amazed you have to remove the screen on the alu iMacs, just to replace the HD.

Really, it kills me sometimes, when I go on Appleinsider, and people are like "I had to replace the mobo on my MB like 3 times, and hopefully they fix it now, but meanwhile I have to make this post from my old Windoze machine. I can't wait until I get OSX back!" The irony is that the old Windows machine still works, but Apple can still do no wrong, ever.

I don't like Apple that much, as I really don't find them any better than MS, but OSX is so nice; they really have users over the barrel, and they know that the majority of the Apple faithful will put up with what ever they do. No FW on the new MB? SJ says you don't need it anymore, and eventually most start to agree.

Using Apple is all about OSX, but if it could be done cheaper, use faster HW, most people would leave Apple and MS in the dust.

Apple uses custom motherboards, but the major components (CPU, GPU, RAM, HD, wifi/BT radios) are the same you can buy and use in any other PC for less.

Really, how hard is for you guys to understand what the Closed Hardware approach is? :s

Really, how hard is for you guys to understand what the Closed Hardware approach is? :s

Custom motherboards don't equate to a closed platform, other OEMs use custom boards as well. A closed platform is supposed to increase stability and improve the overall experience, by only picking a few particular parts, but at the same time, it makes Apple very slow to change, as they only update their HW once or twice a year.

Apple puts style before usability, it has to be "sleek and elegant but not necessarily functional" it isn't the most efficient way to have to go through all that just to find your hardware tucked nicely in a far away place. How many times have you all bought a piece of hardware and then a couple months its out dated and half priced? We need customizability. I'm not bashing anything, because even though the macbooks are tough to upgrade, look at the Mac Pro, its so easy to swap parts out and upgrade it, but look at the price increase.

I'm going to have to go with the conservatives on this topic, because this debate is the same as in the fashion world. "Why pay $10,000 for this name when you could get the same fabric for $1,000?" It's just a mindset people have. I do love the user friendliness of OS X, but to pay that much more for something to be nice to me, I'd rather not.

Custom motherboards don't equate to a closed platform, other OEMs use custom boards as well. A closed platform is supposed to increase stability and improve the overall experience, by only picking a few particular parts, but at the same time, it makes Apple very slow to change, as they only update their HW once or twice a year.

In the Apple method it doesnt mean propietary hardware, but about how they make their OS and entire developing framework optimized for few specific configurations. Leopard has been made with around 20 different computer configurations in mind while Vista must support thounsands with help of hardware manufacturers. That allows Apple to handle the Hardware longer, just take a look at the G3 example I said before in this thread.

Apple puts style before usability, it has to be "sleek and elegant but not necessarily functional" it isn't the most efficient way to have to go through all that just to find your hardware tucked nicely in a far away place. How many times have you all bought a piece of hardware and then a couple months its out dated and half priced? We need customizability. I'm not bashing anything, because even though the macbooks are tough to upgrade, look at the Mac Pro, its so easy to swap parts out and upgrade it, but look at the price increase.

I'm going to have to go with the conservatives on this topic, because this debate is the same as in the fashion world. "Why pay $10,000 for this name when you could get the same fabric for $1,000?" It's just a mindset people have. I do love the user friendliness of OS X, but to pay that much more for something to be nice to me, I'd rather not.

Using that mindset: I rather pay for a laptop that costs $2,000 and I know it will last me at least 5 years than a hardware equivalent that will cost me $1,500 but will last maybe 3 years if lucky. The cost per year is lower, the assembly quality is higher (Can you seriously say that an Aluminium, tank-like built laptop is not functional over a plastic one?), the screen is more suitable for my needs (graphic design for printing) and when its time to get rid of it I can sell it for a decent price because doesnt lose value as much as others brands.

In the Apple method it doesnt mean propietary hardware, but about how they make their OS and entire developing framework optimized for few specific configurations. Leopard has been made with around 20 different computer configurations in mind while Vista must support thounsands with help of hardware manufacturers. That allows Apple to handle the Hardware longer, just take a look at the G3 example I said before in this thread.

No offense but im getting fed up of people spouting this nonsense, Apple has a set spec, Microsoft doesnt they have to code for many MANY number of configurations, if Microsoft had the luxury of being able to code their OS for 1 set of hardware im sure it would be comparable to Leopard.

Just look at OSX86, take OSX out of its comfort zone of a very limited number of configurations and it falls apart.

No offense but im getting fed up of people spouting this nonsense, Apple has a set spec, Microsoft doesnt they have to code for many MANY number of configurations, if Microsoft had the luxury of being able to code their OS for 1 set of hardware im sure it would be comparable to Leopard.

Just look at OSX86, take OSX out of its comfort zone of a very limited number of configurations and it falls apart.

1.- Do you realize you are just confirming what Im saying?

2.- Do you realize that most OSX86 distributions are hacked at the system level?

No offense but im getting fed up of people spouting this nonsense, Apple has a set spec, Microsoft doesnt they have to code for many MANY number of configurations, if Microsoft had the luxury of being able to code their OS for 1 set of hardware im sure it would be comparable to Leopard.

Just look at OSX86, take OSX out of its comfort zone of a very limited number of configurations and it falls apart.

Please. The Laptop market is already standardised around the Centrino platform, all Apple would have to do is state "must be centrino platform". As for the desktop - again, apart from a few small white box vendors out there, most of the hardware is pretty much alike these days.

All Apple would have to do is state a standard, "must have an UEFI firmware, Centrino compliant hardware" and one would have no problems. Allowing Mac OS X to be installed on non-Mac hardware doesn't mean that Apple have to make their operating system compatible with hardware that fall outside the 'supported specifications' that they set.

Please. The Laptop market is already standardised around the Centrino platform, all Apple would have to do is state "must be centrino platform". As for the desktop - again, apart from a few small white box vendors out there, most of the hardware is pretty much alike these days.

All Apple would have to do is state a standard, "must have an UEFI firmware, Centrino compliant hardware" and one would have no problems. Allowing Mac OS X to be installed on non-Mac hardware doesn't mean that Apple have to make their operating system compatible with hardware that fall outside the 'supported specifications' that they set.

All speculation that keeps falling outside the company priorities. At times it seems the entire PC community is fed up at apple for not "sharing" what they create. Some others even are naive enough to call that a monopoly. They create the OS, they provide the hardware, is no different of what many plataforms have done before, from vintage systems to modern consoles, get over it, they want to have control of that they make.

1.- Do you realize you are just confirming what Im saying?

2.- Do you realize that most OSX86 distributions are hacked at the system level?

Yes i know what im confirming but im fed up of people bashing Vista because it doesnt run as well on old hardware because its got far too much overhead having to support a crapload of specs and praising Leopard because its so shiny and stable despite only supporting a handful of specs natively.

Yes i know what im confirming but im fed up of people bashing Vista because it doesnt run as well on old hardware because its got far too much overhead having to support a crapload of specs and praising Leopard because its so shiny and stable despite only supporting a handful of specs natively.

Did I bash Vista? Did I even say its inferior or something? Wow, stop beign so defensive man, Im not attacking Vista, Im just saying both companies have different priorities. Do a search on this forum and you will find I have never, ever bashed Vista. In fact I have big expectations of W7

1.- Do you realize you are just confirming what Im saying?

2.- Do you realize that most OSX86 distributions are hacked at the system level?

And with respect to #2, good luck when trying to install updates, especially ones at the kernel level.

All speculation that keeps falling outside the company priorities. At times it seems the entire PC community is fed up at apple for not "sharing" what they create. Some others even are naive enough to call that a monopoly. They create the OS, they provide the hardware, is no different of what many plataforms have done before, from vintage systems to modern consoles, get over it, they want to have control of that they make.

For me, I don't want to build my own desktop or laptop; I just want a better laptop than what I'm being offered. The new MacBooks are great - but how long before they fall behind the 8th ball again? The white MacBook is a joke given what one can get in quality generic pc land for the same price.

Desktops though, I'm happy with the current iMac line up anyway.

For me, I don't want to build my own desktop or laptop; I just want a better laptop than what I'm being offered. The new MacBooks are great - but how long before they fall behind the 8th ball again? The white MacBook is a joke given what one can get in quality generic pc land for the same price.

Desktops though, I'm happy with the current iMac line up anyway.

In the end its all about how do you use your hardware. I have known and read many printshops and editorials still using G3s and G4s. Capitalism has taught us to spend more and more while we cycle our tools more and more, we have been said that the newest is the best and everything else is crap (that is the one thing I really hate about Apple marketing). But reality says that if you take care of your equipment it can work and last a lot more than the industry says. This is true for both Macs and PCs and this is what I plan to do. Of course we can agree that a well built and solid machine can last a lot with proper care, than one also with proper care but made of weaker parts.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • GitHub removes manual model selection from Copilot free and student plans by Karthik Mudaliar GitHub is removing the ability to manually select an AI model from its Copilot Free and Student plans, making its automatic routing system the default and only way to choose a model. This means users on these tiers will no longer be able to deliberately select a particular OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or Microsoft model for a task. In its announcement, GitHub said Copilot Auto will dynamically choose what it considers the best model for each request. Free and Student accounts will retain access to models from multiple families, although the available selection will continue to depend on the restrictions attached to each plan. GitHub did not identify a fixed pool of models that Auto will always use, and its documentation warns that model availability can change over time. GitHub describes Auto as more than a random fallback system. On supported surfaces, its task-optimization technology evaluates the complexity of a request alongside real-time information about model health and availability. Straightforward prompts can be routed to faster and less expensive models, while more demanding coding tasks may be sent to higher-cost reasoning models. The company says this approach should reduce rate limiting, latency, and failed requests. Auto generally selects one model along natural prompt-caching boundaries rather than repeatedly switching models during a session, as GitHub found that mid-session changes increased costs without producing sufficient improvements in output quality. Users can still check which model generated a response. In Copilot Chat, the information appears when hovering over an answer, while Copilot CLI and the Copilot cloud agent display the selected model alongside their output. Auto is available in Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, and the cloud agent, with the exact implementation and release status varying between supported development environments. The latest restriction follows several months of adjustments to Copilot’s individual plans. GitHub temporarily halted new Pro, Pro+, and Student subscriptions in April as it sought to manage demand and service reliability. It later introduced token-based billing and began gradually reopening individual-plan registrations on June 17. Alongside the picker change, GitHub is retiring the “Preview” label from Microsoft-developed models. It argues that the label is no longer necessary because Auto handles model routing and models are continuously updated behind the scenes.
    • Look up 'inflation' kid. Ask an AI for the numbers between both games.
    • Google reportedly set to lose two key Gemini and DeepMind researchers to Anthropic by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly preparing to lose two more prominent artificial intelligence researchers, with Gemini contributors Jonas Adler and Alexander Pritzel planning to join rival AI developer Anthropic. According to a report from Bloomberg, both researchers are viewed internally as important contributors to Google’s flagship Gemini model family. Adler worked on Google’s AI coding efforts, while Pritzel was involved in the process used to train AI systems. Neither company has publicly confirmed the moves. The report also does not say when the researchers will formally leave Google or what positions they will hold at Anthropic. Training a large AI model requires decisions covering its architecture, data preparation, distributed computing infrastructure, and post-training methods that shape how the finished system behaves. Researchers with experience operating at the scale of Gemini are consequently difficult to replace quickly. Both Adler and Pritzel have previously contributed to Google DeepMind’s scientific research as well. They are listed among the authors of the company’s work on expanding AlphaFold protein-structure predictions across entire proteomes, alongside AlphaFold researchers including John Jumper. The reported departures arrive shortly after another important change within Google’s Gemini organization. Gemini co-lead Noam Shazeer is leaving Google for OpenAI, after returning to the search company in 2024 through its deal with Character.AI. Shazeer is particularly well known as one of the authors of the Transformer paper, whose architecture became the foundation for most modern large language models. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been recruiting recognizable figures from other leading laboratories. OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director Andrej Karpathy joined Anthropic’s pre-training team in May. His move, followed by the reported recruitment of several Google researchers, suggests Anthropic is strengthening the research teams responsible for the core capabilities of future Claude models rather than concentrating solely on product and enterprise sales. The competition is complicated by the companies’ extensive commercial relationships. Anthropic competes directly with Google’s Gemini models, but it also relies on Google as an infrastructure partner. In April, Anthropic announced an expanded agreement with Google and Broadcom covering multiple gigawatts of next-generation Tensor Processing Unit capacity. TPUs are Google-designed accelerators used to train and run large AI models. via Bloomberg
    • This article makes my head hurt. Lots of confusing words
    • Google adds built-in computer control to Gemini 3.5 flash by Karthik Mudaliar Google has added Computer Use as a built-in tool in Gemini 3.5 Flash, giving developers a single model that can reason about a task and operate graphical interfaces across browsers, mobile devices, and desktop environments. The feature is available through the Gemini API and Google’s Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, although it remains a preview feature for now. Computer Use enables an AI agent to examine screenshots and return actions such as mouse clicks, scrolling, and keyboard input. A developer’s application must execute those actions, capture the resulting screen, and send it back to Gemini, creating a continuous loop until the task is completed. Google says the integration can be used for activities including repetitive form filling, application testing, research across multiple websites, and longer enterprise workflows. Gemini 3.5 Flash can work with browser, mobile, and desktop environments, whereas Google’s earlier standalone Computer Use model was primarily positioned around browser interaction. The main change is consolidation. Computer control was previously offered through the separate Gemini 2.5 Computer Use preview model. As Neowin reported when that model was introduced, it was designed to interpret a visual interface and generate actions without requiring a website-specific API. Google later brought Computer Use to preview versions of Gemini 3 Pro and Gemini 3 Flash in January 2026. The latest release now incorporates the tool into the stable Gemini 3.5 Flash model rather than requiring developers to select a specialized model solely for interface automation. Gemini 3.5 Flash itself was announced in May as Google’s latest fast model for coding and multi-step agent workflows. It supports a one-million-token input context window and up to 65,000 output tokens, along with adjustable thinking levels that let developers trade additional reasoning for lower latency and cost. Google also added that Gemini 3.5 Flash received targeted adversarial training for computer-use scenarios. The company is also offering safeguards that can require user confirmation before sensitive or irreversible actions and automatically stop a workflow when suspected prompt injection is detected. Its developer documentation describes configurable protections for areas such as financial transactions and changes to sensitive records. Google isn't the first to bring Computer Use to its platform. Anthropic has made computer control available through Claude, while OpenAI has continued improving computer-use performance in its recent models. Microsoft has also applied the concept to business workflows, including a Computer Use capability for the Researcher agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      463
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!