Apple Prices


Recommended Posts

actually the cabling in my case is a joke but it still has superior airflow to that POS that doesn't even have an intake fan to cool the parts like the GPU and CPU.

Mac Pro cases have very closely controlled airflow, and there is a fan right next to the processors. The compartmentalization actually AIDS in controlling the heat and airflow.

edit: here is a good article from InfoWorld that discusses the cooling system of the Mac Pro http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/mac-pro-testing-notes-494

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because the jump from windows vista to 7 wasn't basically the same feature wise except price wise was about 4-8x more

4-8x more? :blink: That would mean Windows 7 Ultimate should cost $1600-$3200 :blink:

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure 7 was cheaper than Vista was. And while it may have had a similar feature set, there were still a lot of changes, improvements and additions to the OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical totally ignorant statement from you. Service packs for Windows DO NOT generally add any new features, they are roll-ups of all of the bug fixes (the lone exception was XP SP2 which added some much needed security features). Those are equivalent to the 10.6.x updates that Apple regularly rolls out for free (like 10.6.5 that is due to be released tomorrow).

That case is very well designed compared to most typical PC cases. Everything is modular and very easy to access or replace. There are almost no exposed wires anywhere.

Agreed on the case. I just got a Mac Pro and I am loving the case. OS X graphics performance right now is driving me crazy, but that was expected. I wanted to put a second hard drive in there, so I just took one of the bays out, screwed my HDD on it, and put the bay back in. I did not have to plug anything in since its at the back of the bay. The only wires I see are the graphics ones, and that is all. Also, that is the old case. This is the new one (and the one I have):

design_expansion_hero20100727.png

For some reason, it looks cleaner than the other one posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4-8x more? :blink: That would mean Windows 7 Ultimate should cost $1600-$3200 :blink:

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure 7 was cheaper than Vista was. And while it may have had a similar feature set, there were still a lot of changes, improvements and additions to the OS.

snow leopard was 30 bucks...

$30 x 4 = 120 (home edition)

$30 x 8 = 240 (ultimate edition)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snow leopard was $30 bucks...

$30 x 4 = 120 (home edition)

$30 x 8 = 240 (ultimate edition)

Ah, I thought you meant the price of Vista -> 7 increased by 4-8x, was like wtf.

Also, while Snow Leopard may have only been $30 bucks..there have been more OSX versions released than Windows.

OSX: 6 (well 5 since I think 10.1 was free?)

Windows: 3

Now I'm not sure how much the previous editions of Mac cost, so I'll just use the $129 quoted earlier:

Mac = 129*4 + 29 = $545 (29 for upgrade version of Snow Leopard)

Windows = 199 (XP pro) + 140 (vista home) + 120 (7 home premium) = $459

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I thought you meant the price of Vista -> 7 increased by 4-8x, was like wtf.

Also, while Snow Leopard may have only been $30 bucks..there have been more OSX versions released than Windows.

OSX: 6 (well 5 since I think 10.1 was free?)

Windows: 3

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink:

Mac:

10.0 Cheetah

10.1 Puma (which I believe was a free upgrade?)

10.2 Jaguar

10.3 Panther

10.4 Tiger

10.5 Leopard

10.6 Snow Leopard

Windows:

XP

Vista

7

Edit: I meant in the same time period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I thought you meant the price of Vista -> 7 increased by 4-8x, was like wtf.

Also, while Snow Leopard may have only been $30 bucks..there have been more OSX versions released than Windows.

OSX: 6 (well 5 since I think 10.1 was free?)

Windows: 3

Now I'm not sure how much the previous editions of Mac cost, so I'll just use the $129 quoted earlier:

Mac = 129*4 + 29 = $545 (29 for upgrade version of Snow Leopard)

Windows = 199 (XP pro) + 140 (vista home) + 120 (7 home premium) = $459

that's a solid point too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink:

I believe that razorfold is talking about in the same timeframe (2001 till 2010):

OS X had a total of 7 released versions (10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6).

Windows had 3 released versions (XP, Vista, and 7), not counting various "editions" of each. 4 or 5 if you count 2K and ME which were the current ones at the time that 10.0 was first released.

This is, of course, not counting Server versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I thought you meant the price of Vista -> 7 increased by 4-8x, was like wtf.

Also, while Snow Leopard may have only been $30 bucks..there have been more OSX versions released than Windows.

OSX: 6 (well 5 since I think 10.1 was free?)

Windows: 3

Now I'm not sure how much the previous editions of Mac cost, so I'll just use the $129 quoted earlier:

Mac = 129*4 + 29 = $545 (29 for upgrade version of Snow Leopard)

Windows = 199 (XP pro) + 140 (vista home) + 120 (7 home premium) = $459

Math isn't quite right as there are probably very few computers that went from 10.0 to 10.6, so at some point an OS X user would have gotten a new computer with a new OS.

But, most people I know went from XP to 7, so take $140 out there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Math isn't quite right as there are probably very few computers that went from 10.0 to 10.6, so at some point an OS X user would have gotten a new computer with a new OS.

But, most people I know went from XP to 7, so take $140 out there too.

I was just comparing retail prices.

And even if you buy a new computer with Windows / OSX you aren't getting the OS for free, it's just included in the cost of your computer. Granted its probably less than paying retail (OEM disks for Windows are a lot cheaper), but it isn't free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that there is no "cost" for OS X - it's Apple's product, and the main selling point for their laptop's. No one really knows what percentage of each laptop actually goes toward buying OS X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Math isn't quite right as there are probably very few computers that went from 10.0 to 10.6

Very few is right. The number would be exactly zero. 10.0-10.3 were PPC only, 10.4 and 10.5 were both PPC and Intel, and 10.6 is Intel only. And, as far as I'm aware, there are very few, if any, Macs that shipped with 10.0 that were capable of running 10.5. Hell, most of those wouldn't even run 10.4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Sony Z series costs more and is a better laptop. Materials do count as well as components. On pure price, Apple isn't nearly as bad as they used to be. Still have to consider the added cost of a Windows license and they STILL don't offer simple addons like a dock.

Apple is just another trendy jeans manufacturer. They all keep your legs warm, one just furthers the illusion that they are more comfortable and make your butt look better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like asking 'Why this Mercedes is two times more expensive than the Hyundai with the same engine?'.

Because the sticker in their engine bay says "Daimler Chrysler"? My friend had a C230 Kompresser, 30k car.. it was a Neon SRT4 engine with a supercharger instead of a turbo and a HUGE body on it. It was a 30k Neon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it's technically better than any mac case without a intake fan on the front to breathe air onto the parts inside for decent temps.

There are TWO fans on the intake or a MacPro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually the cabling in my case is a joke but it still has superior airflow to that POS that doesn't even have an intake fan to cool the parts like the GPU and CPU.

that being said it would take far less time to change the parts out in my machine than it would in that case 10 days a week.

The Mac Pro has quite good airflow. I've used one and seen the temperatures of the parts. The hard disks don't get much air but they idle 35c load 40c which is a perfect temperature. The Add-in cards run all well within their thermal butter zones as-well.

What apple does is they have the front of the case open to air and then they create negative air pressure inside the case by situating fans at the back as exhaust. This pulls lots of air in through the front without needing to have lots of fans there. The rest of the case (side panels etc) are air tight so that the air takes the way of least resistance which is from the front grill to the back.

It works quite well and I think it's plainly obvious you don't know what you're doing. If you have been building computers for as many years as you say then I think your assumptions have been wrong for a long time.

The main ways that the Mac Pro is superior for upgrading to a PC is that there id slmody no cables to unplug or plug in. For Hard Drives you just screw a drive in to its holder and push it in. For RAM upgrades you remove the CPU/RAM tray, then you put the RAM in and slide the tray back. For PCIe cards there is a thumb screw that you remove, then you put the card in and put the screw back. You can upgrade those 3 parts of a Mac Pro in about 5 minutes.

Obviously the main part you cant access is the PSU. But Apple provide an efficient and quiet PSU with enough connectors to power the system with up-to two dedicated graphics cards (up to 6 monitors if you use HD 5 series cards).

You can replace the CPU's if you remove the headsinks but this is hit and miss as Apple only supply compatible firmware for the chip series you have so if Intel release new chips that use a lower fabrication of your processor series there is a likelihood that the system won't boot or that it will but may incorrectly detect your processor specifications and some features (like speedstep) won't work.

But the PSU and CPU issue aren't that uncommon when you are buying a complete system. If you buy for example a D20 by Lenovo which is spec wise identical to a Mac Pro you also have difficulty in accessing the PSU as the case that surrounds it cannot be fully disassembled due to rivets being used instead of screws. So you may need to remove the motherboard before you can remove the PSU. And the CPU's on that system use a joint heatpipe design which requires you to remove a considerably amount of screws. CPU support on this machine is about the same as a Mac Pro, Lenovo won't release BIOS updates to support newer chip families.

Neither machine compares to what you can build yourself of course but that isn't really a good comparison to make because you can build anything you want. You could build your own PC or your own Mac these days, should only compare the Mac Pro to other OEM offerings, otherwise compare Self Built Macs to Self Built PC's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few is right. The number would be exactly zero. 10.0-10.3 were PPC only, 10.4 and 10.5 were both PPC and Intel, and 10.6 is Intel only. And, as far as I'm aware, there are very few, if any, Macs that shipped with 10.0 that were capable of running 10.5. Hell, most of those wouldn't even run 10.4.

Yeah, I couldn't remember how it broke down, as I got in around 10.3. The PPC Macs seem like ancient history compared to early XP PCs.

It can.... but thats another topic

Having used a functioning Hackintosh for a while, I would still say it pretty much can't run OS X. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can apple possibly justify their prices. I've got two laptops to show you. They are speced identically as far as i can tell except that the windows laptop has a slightly faster processor.

I always understood that you might pay even a couple hundred dollars more for an apple... but double the price? It's insane.

http://store.apple.c...mco=MTc0Njg1ODg

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16834131087

I agree! I understand that laptop memory is more expensive, but how can they justify adding $400 for an additional 4GB of RAM? They're charging prices in line with what memory cost in the 90s for crying out loud. Here's my configuration with some extras:

  • 2.53GHz Intel Core i5
  • 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
  • 256GB Solid State Drive
  • SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
  • MacBook Pro 15-inch Hi-Res Glossy Widescreen Display
  • Backlit Keyboard (English) & User's Guide
  • Logic Express preinstalled
  • Microsoft Office Mac 2011 - Home and Business Edition

And the cost? $3,147.95! For a laptop, man. Holy Crap Apple! You have some very dedicated (albeit thoroughly suckered) customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah what are you comparing there? A big LOL

- Apple Quality

- OS X Quality

- A MUCH better Trackpad (Multitouch trackpad)

- A MUCH better screen (just take a look at the number of ppi)

- Unibody, aluminum design

- And name them.

You're comparing a Ferrari to a Mercedes. The Ferrari will cost you half a million and will go at a specific maximum speed, the Mercedes will cost $80K if you're not lucky and will go at the same speed, and you decide to stay in your little closed box and you're only looking at the top speed? Wow...

I don't care how you slice it or what it's made of, 4 GB of RAM can never be worth $400, even if it is laptop memory. How can you have quality RAM that's worth 4 times what it should cost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mac Pro has quite good airflow. I've used one and seen the temperatures of the parts. The hard disks don't get much air but they idle 35c load 40c which is a perfect temperature. The Add-in cards run all well within their thermal butter zones as-well.

What apple does is they have the front of the case open to air and then they create negative air pressure inside the case by situating fans at the back as exhaust. This pulls lots of air in through the front without needing to have lots of fans there. The rest of the case (side panels etc) are air tight so that the air takes the way of least resistance which is from the front grill to the back.

It works quite well and I think it's plainly obvious you don't know what you're doing. If you have been building computers for as many years as you say then I think your assumptions have been wrong for a long time.

The main ways that the Mac Pro is superior for upgrading to a PC is that there id slmody no cables to unplug or plug in. For Hard Drives you just screw a drive in to its holder and push it in. For RAM upgrades you remove the CPU/RAM tray, then you put the RAM in and slide the tray back. For PCIe cards there is a thumb screw that you remove, then you put the card in and put the screw back. You can upgrade those 3 parts of a Mac Pro in about 5 minutes.

Obviously the main part you cant access is the PSU. But Apple provide an efficient and quiet PSU with enough connectors to power the system with up-to two dedicated graphics cards (up to 6 monitors if you use HD 5 series cards).

You can replace the CPU's if you remove the headsinks but this is hit and miss as Apple only supply compatible firmware for the chip series you have so if Intel release new chips that use a lower fabrication of your processor series there is a likelihood that the system won't boot or that it will but may incorrectly detect your processor specifications and some features (like speedstep) won't work.

But the PSU and CPU issue aren't that uncommon when you are buying a complete system. If you buy for example a D20 by Lenovo which is spec wise identical to a Mac Pro you also have difficulty in accessing the PSU as the case that surrounds it cannot be fully disassembled due to rivets being used instead of screws. So you may need to remove the motherboard before you can remove the PSU. And the CPU's on that system use a joint heatpipe design which requires you to remove a considerably amount of screws. CPU support on this machine is about the same as a Mac Pro, Lenovo won't release BIOS updates to support newer chip families.

Neither machine compares to what you can build yourself of course but that isn't really a good comparison to make because you can build anything you want. You could build your own PC or your own Mac these days, should only compare the Mac Pro to other OEM offerings, otherwise compare Self Built Macs to Self Built PC's

i'll have to disagreee. negative air pressure and compartmentalized components does not do as good a job as intake fans to exhaust fans airflow set up. otherwise build it yourself cases would still be doing this like they did 10 years ago. if the components stay within operational norms it's because there is nothing you can do on a mac including gaming due to things like poor usage of the hardware as a result of poor drivers and OSX itself to really push that hardware into higher temps. compartmented internals are not going to allow the components to breath in this configuration and will make the HSFs work harder for less effect under load, as if macs can get to that high of hardware utilization.

oh except the mac books or mac book pros how many months ago that were reaching 107c idle but only in OSX. better by design certain right?

I don't care how you slice it or what it's made of, 4 GB of RAM can never be worth $400, even if it is laptop memory. How can you have quality RAM that's worth 4 times what it should cost?

it's because they force apple consumer to use ECC ram, which is great for high level professional tasks that are never done on macs. the kinds of business that would use this kind of ram is going to use other hardware that is not supported in teh mac ecosphere, although they might have a mac in the studio or office for something low level like graphics design as long as they don't plan to use gpu accelerated plugins and such.

i recently bought a 2gb sodimm for my netbook for less than $60 cdn. not ECC but it's perfectly fine for anything that would be done on any laptop. using a laptop for silly things like even graphic design is hilarious imho becuase you are wasting your time and money doing the job with the wrong tools in favour of looking hip down at teh starbucks sipping on your $7 latte.

apple is all about fo0rm over function, aestehtics over purpose. it's so painfully obvious in every way from every pic of the hardware for the past 20 years to screenshots and videos and explainations of the OS. btu apple fanboys sucker businesses and professionals into beliwing that they're going to get he job done better or faster on a mac for more money upfront and more time and money spent maintaining the machine with less choices of software and weaker usage of the hardware they paid an exhorbant premium for that doesn't handshake well with the rest of the world which is ofc never apple's fault it's the rest of the world's fault.

but ofc it's all about the alluminum unibody design and magic trackpad and superior workflow :rolleyes: as if lightweight high strength plastics aren't in some ways better tech and less likely to get grimy, as if all trackpads arn't **** compared to a mini 3 button mouse that works on every surface but glass for just about everything and right click context menus in windows since 95 don't triumph dragging files to copy them from one folder to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll have to disagreee. negative air pressure and compartmentalized components does not do as good a job as intake fans to exhaust fans airflow set up. otherwise build it yourself cases would still be doing this like they did 10 years ago.

Have you not looked around? They do.

Corsair 800D one of the best cases around. Has 4 exhaust fans and no intake fans. :laugh: You are seriously out of touch. I get annoyed when hacks proclaim x y and z when they really have no good experience. I'm a professional builder with a custom water cooled system. I've built more machines that I can remember using the lowest end hardware to the highest end hardware including the latest products on the market today. I know what I'm talking about and you obviously do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll have to disagreee. negative air pressure and compartmentalized components does not do as good a job as intake fans to exhaust fans airflow set up. otherwise build it yourself cases would still be doing this like they did 10 years ago. if the components stay within operational norms it's because there is nothing you can do on a mac including gaming due to things like poor usage of the hardware as a result of poor drivers and OSX itself to really push that hardware into higher temps. compartmented internals are not going to allow the components to breath in this configuration and will make the HSFs work harder for less effect under load, as if macs can get to that high of hardware utilization.

oh except the mac books or mac book pros how many months ago that were reaching 107c idle but only in OSX. better by design certain right?

it's because they force apple consumer to use ECC ram, which is great for high level professional tasks that are never done on macs. the kinds of business that would use this kind of ram is going to use other hardware that is not supported in teh mac ecosphere, although they might have a mac in the studio or office for something low level like graphics design as long as they don't plan to use gpu accelerated plugins and such.

i recently bought a 2gb sodimm for my netbook for less than $60 cdn. not ECC but it's perfectly fine for anything that would be done on any laptop. using a laptop for silly things like even graphic design is hilarious imho becuase you are wasting your time and money doing the job with the wrong tools in favour of looking hip down at teh starbucks sipping on your $7 latte.

apple is all about fo0rm over function, aestehtics over purpose. it's so painfully obvious in every way from every pic of the hardware for the past 20 years to screenshots and videos and explainations of the OS. btu apple fanboys sucker businesses and professionals into beliwing that they're going to get he job done better or faster on a mac for more money upfront and more time and money spent maintaining the machine with less choices of software and weaker usage of the hardware they paid an exhorbant premium for that doesn't handshake well with the rest of the world which is ofc never apple's fault it's the rest of the world's fault.

but ofc it's all about the alluminum unibody design and magic trackpad and superior workflow :rolleyes: as if lightweight high strength plastics aren't in some ways better tech and less likely to get grimy, as if all trackpads arn't **** compared to a mini 3 button mouse that works on every surface but glass for just about everything and right click context menus in windows since 95 don't triumph dragging files to copy them from one folder to another.

There is so much wrong with everything you said here, I really don't know where to begin with tearing it apart.

Firstly, let's assess your remarks regarding "as if macs can get to that high of hardware utilization". The Steam platform is available on the Mac and is accelerating at a reasonable pace in terms of available content, so they can game... Also let us not forget pro tools available on OS X such as Final Cut, Maya, Shake, Nuke as well as Xtools for software dev. Are you trying to tell me that these tools, which are all multi threaded, do not push the system into the realms of stress? If so, please exit stage left using the logout button.

Secondly, tools are befitting the budget and scale of the project. Please do not condescend to those who have lower specced machines than those in your fantasy world and profess that they are not designers, or engineers because their paper performance doesn't match yours. They are tools and acheive the same end goal.

Your argument of form over function is flawed also... Explain to me what function a Dell, HP or Asus laptop achieves in it's form that the Apple machines do not? They don't. They are all on par, the only real difference is cost and that is a personal choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.