Posted on 11/07/2007 2:16:36 PM PST by Swordmaker
Let's put to rest the myth that an Apple computer will set you back more than a Windows PC. In fact, it'll cost you less.
It's time to buy an Apple computer. Indeed, it's been that time for the past five years, at least, but only now, slowly, are people waking up to this fact. Thanks to Apple's relentless flash -- the John Hodgman ads, the iPods, the iPhones -- its Macintosh business is now in league with that of the biggest PC companies in the world. Everyone who's used it agrees that Leopard, the operating system that Apple released late last month, is to its chief rival, Microsoft's Windows Vista, roughly as Richard Wagner is to Richard Marx. This simple truth is dawning: If we forget about computer-industry network effects and monopolistic business practices, if we forget Apple's various ancient missteps -- if we're going just by what's better -- the ages-old Mac-vs.-PC debate is over. Long over. Yell it from the rooftops: The Mac has won.
And yet, you're not buying an Apple computer. Most of the world isn't. There is probably a single overwhelming reason you're clinging to Windows. Macs are expensive. This is what you've been told, and in your research, it's seemed to check out. If they acknowledge it at all, Mac fans will rationalize the higher prices by noting that you're paying for quality. Buying a Mac, folks say, is like buying a BMW (Apple CEO Steve Jobs regularly compares the Mac's market share with that of German luxury cars). But what if you don't want the BMW of PCs? What if you can only afford a Chevrolet?
The present article is an attempt to prove to you that, on price alone, the Mac is not the BMW of computers. It is the Ford of computers. I am not arguing that the Mac is cheaper only if you consider the psychic benefits conferred by its quality. Rather I'm going to illustrate something more straightforward: Even though you may pay a slight premium at the cash register for a Mac over a comparable Windows PC (a premium that gets slighter all the time), it will cost you less money -- real, honest-to-goodness American dollars -- to own that Mac than to own that PC.
Why this should be has to do with an economic truth that has not recently mattered much in the computer industry, but that, in an age of eBay and unyielding obsolescence, is now crucial. It is resale value. Macs fetch far more on the aftermarket than do PCs -- and after years of use, you can offset that cash-register premium by selling your Mac for a better price than you could your PC.
Consider this example: Last Thanksgiving, you could have purchased a fairly well-outfitted Windows desktop -- the HP Pavilion Media Center A1640n -- on sale from some retail outlets for $699. The machine came with 2 gigabytes of memory, a 250 GB hard disk, and it ran on a quick 1.86 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor.
Around the same time, you might instead have picked up Apple's top-of-the-line Mac Mini, which came equipped with a processor slightly less powerful than the HP's (a 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo), a far smaller hard disk (80 GB), and less memory (512 MB). The Mac Mini would have set you back $799, or $100 more than the HP.
A good way to gauge the current market value of a computer is to check how much buyers have been willing to pay for similar models in auctions recently completed on eBay. Doing so for the HP shows prices ranging from $236 to $257 -- let's say a rough average of $250. Sales of the Mac Mini, meanwhile, go from about $445 to $550. Let's assume you can unload yours for $500.
If you used your HP for a year and then sold it, you would have spent $449 to own it -- that is, your purchase price of $699 minus your sale price of $250. The Mac Mini, for the same year, would have set you back far less: $799 minus $500, or just $299.
I ran such comparisons on many Windows and Mac systems sold during the past four years, and in nearly every one -- whether the machines were laptops or desktops -- the Macs sold by enough of a premium over comparable Windows machines to make up for the greater amount you would have paid when buying them.
In the spring of 2006, for instance, you could have purchased a nice Dell laptop -- the Inspiron E1505, with a 1.66 GHz Core Duo processor, 1 GB of memory, and an 80 GB hard disk -- for $999 directly from Dell. At the time, Apple's roughly comparable entry-level MacBook -- 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo processor, 512 MB memory, a 60 GB disk -- went for $100 more, $1,099.
Even if you'd treated your machine very well, you'd be lucky to sell the Dell today for $550, while MacBooks have recently sold for $710, $740, $790, and even $800. It would, in other words, be a cinch to sell the MacBook for $100 more than the Dell Inspiron, thereby making up the purchase-price difference you paid earlier (and likely even beating it).
Apple fans have long understood the amazing resale value of their machines. Windows users, on the other hand, might be scratching their heads at my argument; in the Windows world, selling your computer (rather than recycling it) is almost unheard of. After just a year or two of use, a Windows machine gets so gummed up with spyware, viruses and other nasty stuff that it seems malicious to ask anybody for money for the thing.
When I say that it is time to consider buying an Apple computer, what I really mean is that it's time to consider that computers can live longer than what we in the Windows camp are used to. It's time to realize that a 2-, 3-, or even 4- or 5-year-old machine is still intrinsically useful -- if not to you then to someone else -- and you'd do well to take this value into consideration when choosing what to buy.
Last year, the Web entrepreneur Daniel Nissanoff published an intriguing book called "Future Shop," in which he argued that by making all goods more "liquid," eBay and other auction sites would profoundly revolutionize how we shop. The coming "auction culture," he writes, "will shake up the status quo by reshuffling brand values according to how well a product actually sells in the secondary market." Instead of choosing what to buy based on its price tag, we'll take into account "how much it will fetch on eBay next year, which corresponds to how much it will really cost you to own it up until then."
Tech geeks tend to purchase computers as if brands don't matter. As long as the specs are in order, they argue, you can buy a bargain-basement PC and rest assured that it'll work out for you -- the logo on the case doesn't mean a thing for how it runs.
Nissanoff's thesis -- not to mention the completed sales on eBay -- upturns this argument. Even for computers, brand matters. This week I compared prices of several machines from Dell, Gateway and other PC vendors against Apple's lineup of Macs. In most cases comparable Macs sold for within $100 more than the PCs.
But the Apples had something extra: that logo, the design, the history, the clutch of fans willing to snap up any products the company makes. You'll need another computer in a year or two, and at that time, when you go to sell your current machine, Apple's intangibles will count for a great deal -- much more than $100.
I don't know which one you were looking at, but the Asus I saw there for $273 is inferior to the Mac, with only PCI Express 8x and fewer memory slots. Asus has one closer to the Mac's specs, but it's over $400 from Froogle.
960 Watt Power Supply (this is 1KW) $ 291.01
As with what I priced, that is really pushing it. One place you can't get cheap on, especially for a power-hungry system such as this, is the power supply. You'll be lucky if a cheap 1KW power supply can deliver even close to that on a continuous basis. You risk blowing your whole system.
Firewire 2 (USB included on ASUS MB) $ 47.69 - Why would you need this? USB 2 is more than enough.
Because as it is, Firewire 400 is already faster than USB2 (up to 70% faster due to the architecture). People doing graphics or video work would need even better, Firewire 800. It takes an inordinate amount of time to transfer multi-gigabyte files to my 500 GB USB2 external drive. My next one will be Firewire 400 or 800, and I'll barely notice the difference between an internal or external drive.
Optical Mouse (scroll wheel... scroll ball is only available on Macs but it can be made to work on Windows) $ 11.25
The only scroll button mouse I've seen even close to that price was nowhere near as good as the Apple mouse. They always make the scroll ball too big and not resistant enough against your finger.
but Im sure Home Premium is more than enough to compete ($110)
Apple doesn't sell an injured version of an operating system that is already superior to any version of Vista. You need Ultimate to even try to compete.
Anyone who pays more than $70 or so for a basic case deserves what they get.
Anyone who only pays $70 deserves what he gets -- a poorly-ventilated, difficult to service case.
Filo, I think you need to do a little more research.
The NVIDIA Graphic card you found for the lowball price on Froogle seems to be a non-DVI. The one in the Mac is a dual DVI Output. In addition, all of the low end cards I found under $49.95 on Froogle were unclosed eBay auction items. Not exactly a reliable source for pricing. The $44.95 cards I saw offered got to that price with a $20 "mail in rebate" which may or may not be viable. I'd probably take the chance.
The only 1000W power supply on Froogle that I found for under $130 was a "pull" that had a 30 day non-DOA warranty. Again, not representative of the market. The next least expensive at $175 was also a "pull"... The legit new 1KW p/s started at $219.95 and went up from there.
The $27 DVD burner "white box" is a return. Again not equivalent. I did see some non-return new for $34.
As for Vista home premium being adequate, this is a "Workstation" class machine and needs the full enchilada not one lacking the security and networking capability that the home version offers. I can accept your $173 price except that the only ones I found in that price range seemed to be coming from overseas sources which may mean they are not legit. I chose the $196 OEM because the supplier was listed as an MS development partner. I certainly do not accept the "Home Premium Edition" as OSX LEOPARD is easily the equivalent of Vista Ultimate.
I did find some lower priced MBs and the processors seem to be even lower than your $565, I found some at $519... but the suppliers all said to call for availability which tends to make me think they'll boost the price when you call. There has to be something wrong when a couple of unknown name suppliers are offer premium processors at $200 - $250 below the market. I also found a "call for availability" ASUS 771 dual socket MB for only $219... The next step up was your $259 one. The rest were over $300. Again you have to ask why the very large discount?
I have built numerous PCs from parts and have never been able to find name brand processors and MBs at $100 discounts. When I've responded to such ads they were invariably "out of stock" but have another model at a higher price that they can sell me.
But you have to remember, QA and Support are paranoid. The religion of QA is that you never say something is supported until it’s tested, period, non-negotiable, doesn’t matter if God Himself comes down and says “no really it’s fine”. And the religion of Support is they don’t support what marketing and QA don’t say they have to, because really they’ve got enough crap to deal with already. This cycle has happened before, it always runs the same pattern: stuff comes out that in theory should work just like the competition, nobody supports their software running on this stuff because they haven’t tested it yet, eventually the market share grows enough and customer demand becomes high enough that they decide to test their software on it, most of the time there really are no problems.
I’m not telling anybody what to or not to buy, I’m saying why I will not buy a Mac, everybody else on this board are big boys and girls and can figure out how to spend their own computer dollars.
You might not imagine it but it happens, not Dells vs HP, but Intel vs AMD, versions of Windows down to SP level (SP2 for XP really hosed things up), and yes Windows running on a native PC vs on an Apple. This is simple stuff, if there is the possibility of any minor difference that might have any minor adverse effect on the software it’s not supported until it’s tested. And the larger your install base the more adamant you have to be about that, small base companies have a more interactive relationship with their customers and can usually navigate these waters in partnership, EA Sports has way too much other crap going on to try to figure out why one guy’s Madden isn’t working.
.. vs Apple. Apple is NOT different on processor, Apple is NOT different on Windows version. As far as a software developer is concerned, Apple is just another Windows OEM
yes Windows running on a native PC vs on an Apple
I think here is where you might not be understanding it. Windows running on Apple via BootCamp IS Windows running on a native PC.
My poison,
The base machine usually costs two to three times as much for the same stuff...
Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
No Apple is not just another Windows OEM, sorry that might be the line they use to help sell the product but it’s a bullshit, and you’re smart enough to know it. It’s different and subsequently it is NOT supported by most 3rd party software makers. If you think it’s so simple talk to them, maybe you can convince them, I’m simply agreeing with them.
Let's see: Intel processor and chipset, standard HDD, standard video card, standard memory, standard ports, standard monitor. With BIOS compatibility now built-in, it's a standard Windows machine as from any Windows OEM. Even better, Apple gives you all of the exact drivers you need and automatically keeps them up to date on your Windows partition. As a Windows box, it's better than your average Windows box. It certainly was the easiest and fastest Windows install I've ever done -- and I've done hundreds.
Its different and subsequently it is NOT supported by most 3rd party software makers.
I just looked through a bunch of the software I have, and going back quite a bit to earlier versions. I see comments about supported Windows versions and service packs. I see specifically supported DirectX and OpenGL versions. I see comments about requiring certain Intel processor versions and using AMD processors. I see comments about specific video cards. I see special processing packages to handle SSEx instructions and AMD processors. I even see an old game that requires DOS/4GW (yes, I'm going way back).
But I see NOTHING about who built your computer, regular Windows OEM, Apple, or DIY. Why? Because if the hardware is the same, MOST SOFTWARE VENDORS DON'T CARE! Being a software vendor myself, I know I don't care which OEM made the system my software is running on because it doesn't matter. Currently I require Windows 98 through Vista with .NET 2.0 -- all else is irrelevant because all else is abstracted by the layer I program to.
What you're thinking is only true in niche cases where they're extremely anal about what systems they support and usually certify only a couple OEMs. Then it's not the fact that it's Apple, but the fact that it's not one of the specific OEM systems they support (which means all other OEMs are in the same boat as Apple).
Re: It’s different...
You’ve made the assertion... so tell us: exactly how are Apple’s running Windows different?
I know this thread is a bit old, and that you had back-and-forth several time with different folks, but I decided to come back and comment anyway.
As a new person to the mac world, it does just seem odd that someone would sell and old pc. But it happens in the mac world. And for real money. Old PCs are worth about salvage value. Macs on ebay go for real money. I couldn't believe it myself, but it is true. Way weird...
I was the “guinea pig” in a Mac/Windows experiment some years ago. As the newest designer on the design dept. in a corporation, I needed a computer. The powers-that-be said Macs cost too much and that we needed to get a Windows PC. By the time we got the PC, loaded it up with all the fonts, graphic card, etc. that I would need (not including the software) the Windows machine came in at a whopping $1,000 more than the latest Mac machine. This was back in ‘97 and things have evened out much more since then.
You’re really using an idiotic argument here, frankly I expected better from you, I used to respect you but the way you’re using bad marketing “logic” here is killing that. Of course you won’t see anything on your old software packages about not running on Macs because back then there was no possibility of that. The warning you seen about AMD are exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about.
And as for what’s different, well apparently there are enough differences that Boot Camp doesn’t even work on all the machines:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/13/apple-said-to-be-prepping-boot-camp-fix-for-24-inch-imacs/
And Vista apparently doesn’t like it (though you can work around it):
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306882
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199000536
A fellow here can’t use his sound card:
http://www.versiontracker.com/php/feedback/article.php?story=20070816103249510#comments
And there’s more out there if you want to Google it. Most of the problems seem pretty minor, but there are problems, which means there are differences, which means any QA guy that’s earning his paycheck will demand his company do a full regression running under Boot Camped Windows before declaring support.
The other problems were from installations in which the apple hardware was not standard... one for a FireWire sound card (certainly not standard)... and the problem with the 24inch white iMacs occurs only with one specific make of upgraded graphic card (the ones with the standard card do not exhibit the problem) whose Windows driver was not included on the Boot Camp driver disk .dmg file with the original Beta release... and all of these, except for the issue with the user not having bothered to install the included driver disk on OSX.5, are issues with Boot Camp Beta... and are installation issues with getting Windows to run properly not issues with running third party apps.
It is likely that Windows itself would have problems with the Firewire sound card (that's really a strange bird), the user not installing the drivers for his specific hardware, and the upgraded Mac graphic card. None of these issues strike me as an issue that a third party app help desk would encounter. They would be obviously OS installation issues. I'd call Apple.
It doesn’t matter if the 3rd party support might be called on for these, what matters is that these are clear demonstrable differences between Windows on a PC and Windows on a Mac via Boot Camp. The existence of clear demonstrable differences means no declaration of support without a regression test, period, non-negotiable, anybody that says otherwise needs to be fired instantly. It’s not that tough to understand, you don’t sell software to people telling them it will work on a platform until you’ve proven it will, and if customers go and do it anyway they should have freaking listened to you, period, simple. When you’ve got 10s or 100s of thousands of customers you’re going to run into enough unique annoying problems to drive your support staff to drink already, no reason to make the situation even worse by simply taking Apples word for it and assuming (we all know about the ass-u-me) there are no differences, especially not when 2 minutes on Google shows there ARE differences.
NO, Discostu, it isn't. It is merely a Windows machine that has not had the proper Windows drivers installed.
Once they are installed, it is a Windows machine... completely.
That is the basic problem that Vista has had with a lot of hardware set-ups... lack of proper drivers for 3rd party peripherals or internals. Same problem.
The fact is that the Mac running Windows on the basic machine, has already passed the Vista compatibility tests. How difficult is it to understand that the problems you posted are exactly the same as a Windows machine that has not had the proper drivers installed? Once the drivers are installed, the problems GO AWAY.
When you have 10s or 100s of thousands of PC customers, you are going to have many multiples of combinations of hardware and driver issues... it is nothing more than exactly the same with the Apple hardware... except that the driver issues are easy to resolve with the disk image that Apple includes with Boot Camp... customized to the Apple hardware. How is it any different than Joe PCuser with his oddball graphic card from no-name GC, Inc.? They have to support him... they have to support Apple's much more standard hardware.
Do you really think that the tech support desks have actually had regression test of their software run on every possible combination of hardware that every PC maker has pushed out the door... or that Joe Blow hobbyist has built? Of course not. They still have to support what is presented to them. The platform is the OS... Windows. When booted from a partition created by Boot Camp (which is all Boot Camp does, other than provide a disk of Windows drivers for the hardware), there is not an iota of Mac OS running. It is Windows.
Seriously, have you, personally, been turned down for support on a Windows problem by a 3rd party tech support for YOUR Apple? Didn't think so.
Look you asked for differences, I found differences, don’t try to write them off they ARE differences. That’s the problem with you Mac guys, you get so worked up whenever anybody points out that the Mac world isn’t 100% perfect. Face reality there ARE differences and that means any smart company needs to find out if the differences effect their product.
That firewire sound card problem doesn’t magically go away.
Actually they don’t have to support the guy with the oddball graphics card. I’ve seen software that listed unsupported graphics cards, because they didn’t work with those cards and they decided the problem with the cards was more trouble to fix than it was worth.
I KNOW as a decade plus professional QA engineer that you NEVER announce support for ANY platform without a full regression EVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Mac is a different platform, no matter how much you say it isn’t those links I found PROVE IRREFUTABLY that it is, and therefore no company that deserves to be in business will support it without the test. I don’t understand why you wrap your head around this grotesquely simple concept: no support without the test, like I said last week: it is a 100% non-negotiable concept.
HELLO, are you paying any attention at all?! I won’t own an Apple because of the non-support issue. Now really, this has gone beyond stupid in your refusal to grasp the most basic concept of the software business. You asked for differences, I found differences, it’s over, you’re wrong. Goodbye.
Boot Camp, and with it the drivers, was still in beta. It's also apparently related to the myriad of problems Vista has had on many different systems, especially with the drivers.
Are you saying the QA guy should get multiple systems from every OEM and build thousands of DIY systems in hopes of covering every possible hardware situation?
No I’m saying Macs and PCs are different, and therefore need to be considered differently until proven, through testing, to work the same for your ap. This isn’t hard, if Macs and PCs weren’t different they wouldn’t be Macs and PCs, the whole Mac vs PC battle wouldn’t exist, there wouldn’t be two separate markets, then there wouldn’t need to be the testing. But they are different, and it needs to be tested before announcing the support. Really, anybody that’s worked in QA or support for a day understands this, it’s painfully simple.
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.