|
geller
Apr 28, 2008 2:03 PM
|
You know why i tell friends to go Apple? It means I get less of them hassling me on the weekend to come and fiddle with Windows. It's the newb-friendly system.
On the desktop Apple are a FAIL for value. But they're the way to go for notebooks. $1499 for the the 13inch Macbook - you can't go wrong.
Comment made about the PC Authority article:
PC vs Apple: The Value Battle?
Are Apple computers worse value than Windows PCs? Alex Kidman does the sums, and finds the truth about which platform is the better deal.
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
Pacman
Apr 28, 2008 2:24 PM
|
Sorry, but this story is buried for price and comparison inaccuracies.
The Sony VGCLJ25GB at $2799 is NOT a good example of desktop pricing on the market. The Sony's are all overpriced and badly spec'd units. Step into any Harvey Norman (biggest computer retailer in Australia) and you will find:
1) that most systems are NOT sold as a bundle and are sold as a desktop only. Your example if fishing for controversy by trying to measure upto apple's bundling. The reason PC units are often bundled is people like to hang onto their old monitors and that good quality monitors are cheap to get these days.
2) The price for top of the line desktop units goes for around $1500 - $2000 and include a range of hardware maunfactuers such as dell, HP, Compaq, Acer and Asus. For that price you'll most likely get 2.5Gz of processing power (or more), at least 500Gb (probably 1TB), TV tuner card, wireless keyboard, mouse, remote, 512GB graphics, etc. A good quality monitor will set you back around $350 - $600 for 22 - 24 inches. That is still miles cheaper than the Mac example you posted. And a much better unit. Plus you can upgrade it in any shape or form you like, unlike Mac attacks. And then you have DIY which cut the price even further.
3) The Lenovo is not a good example of a 13 inch laptop that is priced comparitively on the market. Where do you get your examples from? There are many units at around 12.2" that are priced (particularly HP and toshiba) from $2200 and less.
Sorry,you can't help make us believe Mac's are better value. They are not. They are highly specialized for the cafe late' graphics and editing crowd and thats where they will always stay thanks to propaganda mac pieces like this.
Conclusion: Author is deluded. |
|
Alex Kidman
Apr 28, 2008 2:36 PM
|
I'm deluded. Cool. Off to chew the furniture then :)
I don't entirely disagree with you (how could I argue with one of the icons of my youth? I mean, really...), except for the fact that the iMac is sold as a bundled unit -- as such, it's competing with other bundled units, and as you've identified, there aren't many competing in that space. Comparing a bundled unit (and all the design/build challenges that brings) to components is nearly always going to tilt in favour of the components. I think I noted that above. Although I'm having a tiny bit of trouble with your sums. $2K PC + $600 monitor + $751 (Vista Ultimate RRP) is a touch more than the iMac listed. Nearly a grand more, in fact.
As for the Lenovo, find me a super-thin ultraportable in that space that compares (and thus fights for marketshare). Yes, there are other 12-14" units out there, but again they're targeting different markets. The X300 is, essentially the Air with added grunt, as mentioned in the article.
And finally, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, per se. The article is trying to ascertain if the old maxim about Macs being hideously overpriced is true. I don't think (given the examples listed) that they are any more. |
|
Pacman
Apr 28, 2008 2:52 PM
|
Good article, but I juts thought your Mac love was a little off the mark in the PC desktop sphere. Also, Vista Ultimate is bundled on one quite a few of the desktops out there, so it's hardly worth adding as an extra cost.
Finally, do any of us really want windows vista, let alone windows vista ultimate? The answer is a resounding No!
Most of us are happy to take the said desktops and load XP on them or deal with the standard XP premium on the lower grade destops which does the job fine without aero silliness. |
|
kevin_watters
Apr 28, 2008 3:54 PM
|
You cannot compare 'value' between a PC and a MAC... thats like comparing the value of a KIA Opirus auto vs a Lexus IS F... sure they both have leather seats, 4 wheels, have air conditioning and go fast but anybody who has driven the Lexus will tell you there is NO comparison. Just like I will tell you there is no comparison between PCs and MACs. I have both... I use both... but when I need to work on something and its important, needs to be done quick and CORRECTLY guess which system I use... my MAC. When I want to play a game... my PC. Guess which machine gets reformatted every few months... NOT my MAC. Guess which machine my wife prefers now (after using NOTHING but PCs for years and years)... yep you guessed it... my MAC.
THATS where the value of the MAC is. The fact that I paid 2 - 3x MORE for my MAC with EXACTLY the same specs I can buy a PC for... does not matter... they are WORTH every cent when push comes to shove.
|
|
bbjai
Apr 28, 2008 4:34 PM
|
I think your example is a bit flawed even though technically its correct. Your comparing the same type of computer with the same type of computer. In fact as you have noted most people would by a box first and then a screen. A good 22-24 inch screen is listed at 300-400. Usually Vista Home Premium is distributed with it. I wouldn't use ultimate and wouldn't consider ultimate the equal of OSX. Half the features in OSX doesn't even appeal to half the market out there who just want a web browser, watch videos and play some games. Vista Home Premium would be more then sufficient for this so adding Ultimate to it is discounting the value side of the consumers needs ultimately.
Lastly I think you'll find a Box computer from dell will come with something alot better then a ATI Radeon Pro 2600.......Lets not mention the fact that Mac games are nearly non existent. |
|
Pacman
Apr 28, 2008 4:57 PM
|
bbjai, well said..my point exactly |
|
Alex Kidman
Apr 28, 2008 7:02 PM
|
Nope, somebody else said that. I don't think you *can* make a fair comparison except to compare same computer types. And I'd agree, Ultimate isn't the equal of OS X. For a start, OS X works.
But in a features sense, Home Premium isn't the best Vista can be (which isn't saying much) -- hence why I used Ultimate in my examples.
Yep -- the Mac isn't an extensive gaming platform, but there are titles out there. And heck -- one can always use Boot Camp and Windows if the games thing is important to you. Or a games console. |
|
bbjai
Apr 29, 2008 10:19 AM
|
Thats probably true, I've been contemplating a iMac for a LONG time. I just can't weigh up the differences in price for certain things. Granted I probably have an advantage of being able to build my own computer so the price points would be hugely different. But if you went down to any old computer store (I note in the PC Authority A list from vendors the mid range PC) you could get a good deal that would probably be worlds apart from a iMac. Fair enough it probably wouldn't be a 24" screen but the iMac 20" is a HORRIBLE screen as well.
What cuts it for me is the graphics card, it ultimately cannot play games with high detail and a playable frame rate.
Vista doesn't work your right, but most people go and install XP on it anyway. OSX works for sure but is it something people want to move to? I for one use Microsoft at work and would be extremely annoyed at switching systems every time I went home. Its all a matter of preference I suppose. The iMac is suitable for alot of casual computer users. |
|
steve_666
Apr 29, 2008 2:27 PM
|
great comments.
I, for me, reckon a pc is a better deal. For one its cheaper and its easier to upgrade, i dont care about the OS it comes down to the hardware for me.
my 2 cents worth |
|
Pacman
May 6, 2008 3:07 PM
|
Steve, about 4 billion people agree with you, but the writer still wants to believe in apple sponsored fantasia. |