IS mac cheaper than PC?

[nplima]

[...]this article[...]

The article used this approach for comparing the computers:

I chose a standard MacBook configuration–the middle one, which is neither stripped down nor high-end…
Then I configured laptops as similarly as possible from the country’s two largest PC manufacturers (HP and Dell)

.. and I bet the results would have been different if the starting point chosen was a specific Dell model.

We won't get anywhere with these discussions until someone adds price analysis to geekbench or any other platform independent performance test.

 

[rhett7660]

The article used this approach for comparing the computers:


.. and I bet the results would have been different if the starting point chosen was a specific Dell model.

We won't get anywhere with these discussions until someone adds price analysis to geekbench or any other platform independent performance test.

You might want to read the whole article. The author does state what he used in the discussion.

MacBook: $1299 (white case)
Dell XPS M1330: $1287 (including an “instant rebate” of $100)
HP dv4t: $1218.99 (including an “instant rebate” of $100)
Sony VGN-SR190: $1608.99

He does go through each spec.....

 

[Edfrommars]

I whipped up this spreadsheet of mid-range desktops out of curiosity. Apparently, the iMac does cost a bit more spec-for-spec, but it's not a very big difference.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pP6DujIAk-Oz-7AwDsjiZIA

 

[nplima]

You might want to read the whole article. The author does state what he used in the discussion.

I did. And what I am saying is that if the comparison started the other way around (ie: hmmm, what MacBook compares to the Dell xxxxxxx?) the outcome would be different.

Bearing in mind that this thread started with someone asking which is cheaper, try using the Dell Studio 17 as a starting point and configure the Apple MacBook and MacBook Pro.

Dell Studio 17:
Intel T9400
17" 1920x1200 screen
price: from £878

Macbook 13"
From £929

Macbook Pro 17"
From £1908

 

[Eraserhead]

Basically no Mac is in general more expensive, but you may well have more fun with it.

Itmay also make you feel better about yourself like buying expensive jewelry or cars (runs and hides).

 

[Digital Skunk]

I did. And what I am saying is that if the comparison started the other way around (ie: hmmm, what MacBook compares to the Dell xxxxxxx?) the outcome would be different.

Bearing in mind that this thread started with someone asking which is cheaper, try using the Dell Studio 17 as a starting point and configure the Apple MacBook and MacBook Pro.

Dell Studio 17:
Intel T9400
17" 1920x1200 screen
price: from £878

Macbook 13"
From £929

Macbook Pro 17"
From £1908

The biggest reason it is hard to do that is because Dell and other PC companies start their system out with lower spec'd parts than the Macs, leaving you the option of upgrading components separately to make a fully customized machine.

It's just easier, and makes more sense to start with the locked in system of the Apple Macbook and work the PC to fit those same specs.

For example, the Dell Studio starts out with integrated graphics and a dual 2GHz processor.

I am pretty sure it would be more like $1750 (1200 BP) for the spec for spec Dell studio and the $2800 (1908) for the 17" MacBook Pro, and there are still some things missing like FW800 and optical audio.

 

[nplima]

I am pretty sure it would be more like $1750 (1200 BP) for the spec for spec Dell studio and the $2800 (1908) for the 17" MacBook Pro, and there are still some things missing like FW800 and optical audio.

no, it's the Macbook Pro that is short of HDMI and Blueray to be comparable to the Dell Studio 17. See where I'm getting?

I had a look at GeekBench and there is a similar (older) Dell Studio 17 there that scores 100 points less than the current Macbook Pro 17". Considering the price difference, we can safely say that for similar performance, this Mac is more expensive than the Dell counterpart - and this is what the thread starter was looking to find out.

 

[mikes63737]

My personal experience has been that Macs are indeed cheaper in the long run, with a larger investment upfront.

Example: In 2000, my first PC had a hard drive failure three weeks in, but it was covered by warranty. The motherboard failed right after a year, and they wanted $400 for a new motherboard. We paid it, for some reason. Then, the hard drive failed again a week after, and they wanted $80 for a new one. A few months later the motherboard fried itself again... another $400 (but we just threw it away that time). So that $800 PC turned into a $1280 PC... and it would have been a $1680 PC if we wanted to keep it longer. That PC lasted a little over two years.

I had a similar experience with my next PC in 2003. While plugged into a surge protector, the PSU exploded. The system wouldn't start, but nothing was damaged. That was on the last day of warranty coverage. The manufacturer sent us a new system, and after the 90-day extension the PSU exploded again, this time frying the processor, motherboard, and RAM. They wanted $1200 to fix it. That PC lasted a little over a year and a half. Well, this was a $900 PC which we could replace for even less now, so we tossed it.

I've had two Macs now and I've never had a problem. I've never even had to take them to the store to get fixed. My first Mac is going on four years old now, and its working perfectly (could use some more RAM...). The only issue I've had with my Mac was needing a new power adapter for my MBP, but that's happened with almost all the PC laptops I've owned too.

Needless to say, I don't buy PCs from those manufacturers anymore. I build my own PCs or buy $400 disposable PC laptops and make sure the data is backed up. It's worked for the last few years, and I've never had a problem.

Once you add up the cost of being without a PC or loss of data, it's a lot more expensive.

 

[Beric]

Ah. Well, if you would explain that to the lowballers I seem to come up against who I end up parting with a Mac for about the same amount as a similar-spec machine from Sony, etc, some of whom hang out in this forum and say exactly the same thing as you, I would be appreciative.

Sony is overpriced as well as Apple. I'm not talking Sony here.

 

[Digital Skunk]

no, it's the Macbook Pro that is short of HDMI and Blueray to be comparable to the Dell Studio 17. See where I'm getting?

I had a look at GeekBench and there is a similar (older) Dell Studio 17 there that scores 100 points less than the current Macbook Pro 17". Considering the price difference, we can safely say that for similar performance, this Mac is more expensive than the Dell counterpart - and this is what the thread starter was looking to find out.

I agree, I am and always will argue how much more expensive.

Many like to say it's more than half for a similarly spec'd machine. But outside of deals, and older models or refurbished or warehouse specials it's always been about a third.

Hence the $1750 vs. $2800.

Also, as I agree with you on, you will find that the difference really come in the hardware selection which will always be more robust on the PC end. Like adding Blu-Ray and having an HDMI port and so forth. Once you factor that in, and the ability to put whatever hardware you want into your machine, the Mac IS a locked in, more expensive system.

In other words, you can't get a 17" laptop with a dual core 2.0GHz chip and integrated GFX card from Apple, when all you want is a 17" Blu-Ray watching machine.

 

[mlts22]

There is one point where Macs are cheaper than PCs: Security.

The cost of a rooted Windows box can be enormous if this is spelled out in both time, aggravation, and money. Not just the time saving off data, formatting, and reinstalling, but the potential of identity theft and blackmail if an intruder obtains sensitive info on a computer.

Yes, some can argue that OS X is secure just because its not mainstream, but the proof is in the pudding... look at the malware alerts for Macs, compared to Windows.

 

[djellison]

, you're paying for what you get.

A lack of firewire, low res screen with poor viewing angle, not enough USB ports, a requirement of £40 of adaptors to plug into external monitors, no BD drives,audio ports that buzz on the output, and don't take many mic's on the input.

But if we want a small OSX laptop - that's what we have to put up with. And we do.

But don't ever pretend that they offer better value as objects. They don't.

For me - the single reason I use OSX is Keynote. It can do things that I need that Powerpoint can't. I'm prepared to pay a 50% premium on a laptop for that.

But I'm not prepared to pay it much longer if Apple don't up their quality. The DL-DVI adaptors farce is just another episode in a long history of Apple getting things wrong. For a company with so much cold hard cash in the bank - that's not acceptable.

 

[Elysianx9]

Are they cheaper? Yes and no, putting your biases aside look at concrete facts. If your comparing a Mac to another OEM, then chances are they are about equal DEPENDING on the OEM. Most examples people have given are relatively poor, comparing the price of more mainstream and less quality manufacturers.

What I necessarily mean in a nutshell, you can compare a Mac and a Dell in price but your excluding a major factor of durability and overall quality.

For my examples, I am NOT going to give examples of computer manufacturers since I build my computers. You can build yourself a computer spec for spec to a Mac Pro, or an iMac of lesser cost, since I build my system and I know where to get quality components.

Continuing where I left off, not only quality components but also wire the interior to be clean and accessible.

As far as laptops go, they aren't over priced. Since DIY laptop kits are scarce your limited to OEM's. True, Mac's have a high resell value but PC's do have a good resell value as well, you just have to know what manufacturer to buy from. Thinkpads, and a lot of IBM/Lenovo models have a resell value equal to Mac's. I recently just sold my IBM T40 for $650.

Despite software you can compare IBM/Lenovo systems to a Mac, both are excellent quality. But then again Mac's have their own issues as well, which Apple isn't very fond of admitting. Where I work I've seen Mac's crash, drives failing, and components overheating just like any computer.

I am not being biased towards Mac's at all, I actually use them occasionally at work if I need to write something for the Mac platform. For the OS if you want to use it they're worth the price, but outside of work I wouldn't buy one. Not because I am cheap, it's because I have no particular use for the system. Also, to exclude your speculation I am nowhere near a Windows Fan Boy. At home I run Linux on my desktop and my laptops, and I've used it for a good 9 years.

Pretty much concluding myself, they're not necessarily overpriced systems excluding self built computers. Your paying for what you get, not just the system but technically a license to run the OS.

 

[liptonlover]

I'm no expert but it seems that when you get a pc to the level macs come at standard, it comes close enough to the same to call it a tie. Macs are assumed to be cheaper because there's no low end. They have a higher normal standard.

 

[bengal85]

PC's are cheaper but they are CRAP you have to deal with the blue screen of death to much I have to put up with windows because its all I can get and in that I am not old enough to move away form home yet I am stuck with it

Mac is more expensive but its because they offer much better products to their customers. I had an older Imac and an older PC and the Imac out performed the PC in ever situation that I did and I never had a problem with it.


When I can I am going back to mac.