so much for the mac cost misconception

this article is by the same author?

Yeah I find this ironic.

shaping up T.dawg

Yes, it's by the same author.

Instead of the Dell Inspiron 518 why didn't you compare it against the Inspiron 530? For $849 you get the following specs:

Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600 (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Service Pack 1
20 inch SP2008WFP Wide Flat Panel with Webcam and Mic
3GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 DIMMs
500GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache?
16X DVD+/-RW Drive
ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO 128MB
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical USB Mouse

I find your choice of Dells to compare against Macs biased.

Seriously, way to man up here.

I didn't think you would but this is good to see this.

Why did you compare the baseline iMac with the Dell Inspiron 518 instead of the Inspiron 530? For $849 you can get the Inspiron 530 wtih the following specs:

Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600 (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Service Pack 1
20 inch SP2008WFP Wide Flat Panel with Webcam and Mic
3GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 DIMMs
500GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
16X DVD+/-RW Drive
ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO 128MB
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical USB Mouse

Isn't this clearly better than the baseline iMac for less money? I think you choice of Dells for comparison to Macs quite biased.

hi decoppel

Hi WeePee

No, because the 513 has just the same specs and an even bigger gap between it and the iMac. This indicates a even better value for the end user if they went for the 513. The 513 is about $500 cheaper than the iMac for essentially the same internal hardware and is even cheaper than the 530 you mentioned. I don't think I'm being biased this time around.

/ Tuan

This article is a bit more balanced, but I still have issues with it. The author still characterizes people who find Apple expensive as either 1) Hardcore Gamers, or 2) "Loyal Windows Users.

Many of us don't fit in either category. I use OSX, Vista, and Ubuntu on a regular basis, and enjoy different aspects of all of them. And although I'm a gamer, neither do I need any video card above the $100-$200 range. I've only payed more than $150 for a video card ONCE.

Yet I still complained as loud as the rest of them about the last article. It was gross caricature of average retail PC field, not to mention custom building, which pulls out even further ahead.

A Mac simply can't come close to a PC in advanced computer tasks for the price. Compare a Mac with my Antec Case/PS, E8400, HD4850, 4gb RAM, and RAID (Mirror) desktop in performance and options. NOTHING exists like it. To get raid for example, you'd have to hit $2800 as a base unit, and mine would still be an overall better system.

Macs have their place as idiot computers and highly specialized programming computers, NOT as mainstream enthusiasts computers.

Tuan may like Apple's offerings a lot. Great, I loved my ibook, and love my father's macbook... but seriously, I expect an editor of THG to have a little more common sense when it comes to the intelligence of his readers.

Er sorry, the 513 has BETTER specs than the baseline iMac for a far lower price.

/ Tuan

Nah it wasn't like that at all, or at least not suppose to mean that.

What I was trying to say is that, Apple's is trying to go after Windows users, and EVEN hard core Windows-based PC gamers. If they want to do that, they seriously have to offer:

1. more options
2. cheaper prices
3. more variety of upgrades
4. more partnerships with 3rd party vendors like graphics card makerse
5. lower systems that aren't permanently tethered to a display
5. lower systems that aren't cramped into a box with no avenue for upgrade

The problem with Apple is that all their affordable gear is locked down. That's a problem.

/ Tuan

Ah, the winds of change...


Repent! Repent! Repent!

"My suggestion to Apple: Create several options that allow expansion, with a more balanced system spec instead of being heavy in the CPU department and lacking everywhere else. Offer a few more graphics card options and work with third party manufacturers to offer more compatible add-in cards and Apple may swing more favorable impressions from loyal Windows PC users."

I agree 100%, I have considered giving OS X a spin, but the price and limited options make me consider the validity of the choice. I wouldn't mind trying it, but at the same time don't want to be bit in the backside and end up with something that doesn't suit my needs properly.

Lenovo will sell you the same setup (except - larger HD and nVidia video rather than ATI) for $3057, or $700 cheaper than the Dell. Still $250 more than the Apple...

...except that Lenovo includes 3 years of next day on-site warranty. Apple Care is another $250 dollars, bringing the price difference to a whopping 10 dollars. Lenovo's warranty docs include time guarantees... Apple says they'll send someone, *if* you're close to an Apple store, with no word on when they'll show up.

The Mac Pro isn't obscenely overpriced like the laptops are, but it's only cheaper if you don't bother comparison shopping.

So you were biased the first time around?

Can we say, told you so?

Other, please view these:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] w=0&nojs=0

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,1985.html



I vote no confidence in THG.



*UPDATE*
I chose on my own will to strike what I said because it was wrong for me to do what I did and make a remark as such against THG. It is not THG that the comment should have been against, but the people who are defending their distorted point of view about Mac's not being more expensive.

I may have been?
The point here is this:

I spent a considerable amount of time last night reading through each and every comment. Although, there were so many that I couldn't reply to any of them directly anymore. Many of them wanted me dead anyway.

The outcome of that thinking and observing everyone's comments is this: My original article had a different argument, one that was something along the lines of "can you build the exact same spec, feature for feature, as Apple, for cheaper?" With that, the answer is not that much cheaper.

According to the feedback I observed however, people were essentially saying "OK. But that does not equal Macs not being over priced."

So I took a closer look at everyone's concerns and went to price out workstation for workstation, desktop for desktop. And the bottom line, desktops, Apple loses. Hence this article.

/ Tuan

Sorry about my other post. I stooped to the OP and authors level, I wont ever do it again.

You know I just don't think you get the point when you are looking at pc's to match the hardware. You can't just check Dell....that is silly. I mean did you even look at HP, or Gateway, or well anywhere? Did you look at the HP xw8600? A system with almost the same hardware for $2369?

If you really want to do a comparison of Macs to PCs, you need to take at least 3 prices of similar hardware, and get as close as you can, even if you need to add to the Mac system. You almost have to add the warranty because all real workstations come with a 3 year warranty.

Go take 3 samples of each category you are comparing and average them. You just need one from Mac because well, they are not a category of computer they are a manufacturer. But if you don't pull from at least 3 manufacturers on the pc side your numbers don't mean a thing.


So far you have only argued about how a Mac stacks up against a Dell.

Just in case you didn't know....Dell is not the only PC maker. I know..strange huh?

I would assume that the article says AVERAGE price means of all the laptops (high end and low end combined) from all manufacturers as compared to all the apple laptops sold.

the question should be where did the pricing info come from? they did not look at a specific combination of equipment only the price period

And then you just looked at Dell's....that is fairly weak research.

Even though most consumers buy their computers from retail outlets, some of the best price comparisons are found from "build it yourself--kind of" vendors like Cyberpower, etc. Can get higher performing parts at a lower markup than you would from any retail store. Mostly because retail pc's are built to be average at best and any deviation from that = extra work for them.

But comparing to a vendor that lets you individually customize parts (Dell doesn't count because of them doubling prices on everything) Will really make the gap evident.

I absolutely agree, just not much time today to do a grand follow up with more in depth digging and research. I wanted to do a quick 1 pager follow up concerning the over priced complaint. So I only really had time to look at Dell.

However, since Dell and others like it compete in similar spaces, I would not be surprised if the outcome of other manufacturers presented the same picture, that: Apple is getting mopped up in these categories for desktops:

- Same or better hardware for less
- Apple has no enthusiast or gaming options
- Even in mid-range options, Apple has none (so far)
- In low cost areas, Apple has some offerings but stab themselves in the foot by locking down the ability to upgrade either the hardware or the display (i'd never buy an iMac for this reason. A display is a critical investment area that can and most often times outlasts the life of the computer its attached to)
- Apple saying it's serious about gaming, but none of its hardware configurations indicate so (that's why I still play games on my PC)

Apple may be cheaper at times in some areas, but from the looks of it (I looked!), it's really getting a beating in the desktop space -- arguably the biggest space of them all.

/ Tuan

Er... gxsolace ? Got a comment to add in copying my comment?

yeah to show you are letting fools eat your dust?

Final point. The whole reason Mac is overpriced is because they are the only place to get Mac OS X on your hardware legally. Only looking at Dell completely negates the primary strength in the pricing of PCs...competition.

You should take a week, put something in depth together and then come back. Also, you realize you were primarily going against a NPD research article right? You went after a research paper with one day of research? Bad move. I know it was knee jerk to the flack you got yesterday, but why even bring up the NPD info then?

You should take a step back, think about it, and then come back with solid info properly researched. That is the cornerstone of Tomshardware.com.

What?

Hopefully 10.6 "Snow Leopard", which is supposed to make it ridiculously easy to develop software for the Mac, will help more hardware companies make drivers that are compatible with Mac. I wish.

That said, the study does neglect the statistic that within the Mac price range, the majority of systems sold are Macs. More people who are willing to spend more money on a new computer are also willing to forgo extra performance for the "Mac experience." For people who don't need more performance, that might seem like a fair trade-off.

The whole "average price" thing is a real flaw as well, as the models that bring the average to $500 or whatever (especially the laptops) don't directly compete with Apple systems performance-wise. You gotta spend at least $800 to get something competitive, maybe even $700.

So at most "twice as expensive" comes with at least 1.5X the performance/feature set.

That said, I will be looking to buy a MacBook Pro for school next year, but I also plan on building a dedicated gaming rig. Vista's not so bad really, but I'd still rather have OSX for everyday computing. If nothing else I can still sell the MacBook Pro later on down the road and still make some money back from it.