If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 04/05/2006 7:02:22 AM PDT by ladyshealth
9 times the price??? Huh?
Low end Mac - $799
Low end Dell - $400
So 2X the price in this specific case.
On the higher end machines, the price isn't anywhere near as different.
It's called hyperbole. Sheesh. Any one with two eyes knows MACS are WAAAAAY more expensive than pcs. They remain a boutique brand for computers. Their little mp3 player is doing well, though.
Office for Mac is not 100% cross platform compatible. It's just easier to do it in windows....
I regularly do work at home on my Mac (often using Office Mac 2004) and have never had a cross-compatability problem taking the files on my thumb drive or emailing them to work and opening and using on Windows machines and vice-versa. This includes PowerPoint, Word, and Excel.
Easier in Windows???? Maybe for you.
Comparably equipped computers - A "premium" PowerMac/High end Dell.
Dell = $3284
PowerMac = 3299
Also note that the PowerMac has dual/dual core processors (quad processors, the Dell is only available with dual).
Yep - WAAAAAAAY more expensive that PCs....
So the largest difference is in the lowest end, which Apple has freely admitted they are not really interested in (I would wager the low-end Mac Mini could sell for a lot less than the $599 current retail, if they really cared about the low-end market).
And now, with Boot Camp, a person is basically getting a Windows and a Mac computer with one price....
ls> Well, if you have to do work at home, Windows is what you need.
Office for Mac is not 100% cross platform compatible. It's just easier to do it in windows....
TB> I regularly do work at home on my Mac (often using Office Mac 2004)
and have never had a cross-compatability problem taking the files on my thumb drive
or emailing them to work and opening and using on Windows machines and vice-versa. This includes PowerPoint, Word, and Excel.
Easier in Windows???? Maybe for you.
23 posted on 04/05/2006 10:59:33 AM MDT by TheBattman
Word 2004 is certainly more user-friendly to use for templates than the most current MS Word for pcs. I regularly import and export complex Excel spreadsheets and Powerpoint slides and very complicated Word documents. I have yet to have a problem. I also use Office 2004 and find it to be a superior product to office for MS.
Who the hell needs dual core processors? You can keep hyperventilating all you want. Macs cost way more than PCs. Everyone knows it. It's why they're a boutique brand.
Who needs more than 640k of RAM?
Macs cost way more than PCs. Everyone knows it.
Everyone knows lots of stuff that isn't true. Intel Macs are reasonably priced compared to brand name Wintels.
Yup BF2 Rules! I've lost countless hours of sleep playing that game. I built a new computer with an expensive top line video card back in Dec and BF2 is the only game i've played on it. It's so addictive I can't get around to loading/playing any other game.
I've also assembled PowerPoint presentations (Office X and Office XP -- a bit dated) with embedded video which *DOES NOT* transfer well.
If you search the web you'll find guides for doing cross platform Office work. It's not 100% cross platform compatible.
Granted, this was with prior versions, but the more advanced you get the more problems you run into. Things may have improved with the newer versions of Office....
>>Who the hell needs dual core processors
Well, if you want to run Windows XP and OS X at the same time with no lag, it's no sweat with dual cores... (Not sure if this is possible with the boot camp release, but a possibility with virtualization or some othere solution.)
Having dual cores means that neither system will suck 100% of the processor's cycles nor slow down the other processor much.
And for games, dual cores rock. The new Xbox 360 has a triple core processor, and the Sony LateStation 3 (pun intended) has rumoured 4-8 cores in its processor.
Check your MS pc Word settings for export !
They are not designed to do what you think you want to do !
You just bolstered MY arguement... so if I step down to a Mac with only a single dual-core processor (sorry, don't make a pro-machine with a simple single processor), I can save a lot more money. so in that case, I now have a high-end mac that competes in performance to a higest-end Dell... for LESS money. So thank you for helping me with my arguement. And I won't mention my iBook that I am typing this reply on - with added RAM cost me $1079. It runs rings around my step-father's nice Windows-based laptop (don't recall the brand but is a "Major player") that he paid nearly $1600 for just a couple of months prior to my purchase. So, yeah...Macs are way more expensive....
So does this mean heterosexuals can now safely use a Mac?
Office Mac 2004 has a compatibility checker that constantly checks for problems that might not work out in a cross-platform environment. Little red tool box that pulsates reminds you to click to solve any possible compatibility issues.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Do yourself a big favor...walk into a CompUSA or Apple store and just take a iMac G5 with Tiger X for a test drive (with Garage Band). Then come back and convince us we should driving Yugos....excuse me...Dells.
By the way your prices are about $700 too high for the iMac plus most of the software you'll ever really need is already included.
To put it another way: You, too, can drop a Chevy engine into your Lamborghini just to see what she'll do!
It's too much for a PC that can only run Windows, but a bargain for a machine that can run OS X.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.