Why buy an Apple?

[cellfish]

I've been an iBook owner since November and I have to say that I'm satisfied with what this little machine can do. However, I've recently been in the market for a desktop and bought a PC and I'll explain why:

- I wanted to buy a Mac but wanted it to be upgradeable. This forced me to consider the PowerMac single processor. The tower alone with operating system cost 2399$ Canadian whereas I can get a new Athlon 2200+ for 650$ Canadian at an auction site.
- I wanted to buy a monitor from Apple to match the computer but all they gave me as choices are Cinema Displays, the smallest of which cost 1000$ Canadian. I can get a nice 17" CRT for my 650$ Athlon for 150$ at the same auction. It has speakers and a microphone built-in.
- I want enough ram on the Mac to match the specifications of the PC. For that and other equivalencies, I add 500$ to the price of the Mac. Total price with shipping for Athlon and monitor = 881$. It's missing an OS for the Athlon, but I can install a linux distribution since it comes with a CDRW at 48x. Total price for the Mac = 3800$.

Now the argument will be: Well, the PC doesn't allow you to run Mac OS X. Granted, OS X is the first decent operating system on the Apple front. It has terrible support for third-party peripherals like printers and scanners, but it is a nicer operating system than Windows.

However, Windows, for all of its security problems and virii possibilities is still a stable os (2000 + XP) that allows for thousands of different computer configurations. Drivers are not as bad as they are on the Mac front, and while the OS is plagued by something as stupid as the registry, it still is a host for way more software, more hardware and frankly, more standards compliance. While I might have to pay 150$ Canadian for the OEM windows, I can easily install OpenOffice and Gimp to take care of the most needed software and I can find drivers for whatever hardware I have. If I hate Windows, I can install any of the dozens upon dozens of Linux or BSD distributions.

Next argument: Windows and Linux don't come with great software like iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, iChat and Mail.

My response: It doesn't, and frankly I still think iTunes is the greatest piece of music entertainment software made. However, MusicMatch is a good substitute, Mozilla Mail's spam control takes care of Mail's best feature, for 75$ Canadian I can get Photoshop Albums as an iPhoto replacement and if ever I get a DVD player, it will come with half-decent software to make DVD's.

This will cost me at most another 600$ Canadian for a total of around 1500$.

My question: Is the Mac or the Mac OS X worth the extra 2000$? With the Mac you get a prettier computer with a better and more secure OS but is it worth the 2000$ when you consider that simple things like USB 2 will never be supported?

My conclusion: For all of the PC's faults, especially Microsoft's faults, the platform allows more choice to the consumer at a lower price. If you need FireWire or USB 2, you can easily add it onto the system with a card whereas you can't with a Mac.. at least not easily. If you're not satisfied with your CD-RW, you can easily replace it and know that your OS will fully support it unlike the Mac. If you want something compliant with 802.11g, you can easily add a card with any PC, whereas only certain Macs will allow for that to happen. If there is a certain file you need to run or view, you can be certain that Windows has an application to perform your desired task, whereas that is not the case with OS X (try to run an .s3m, .mod or .it).

In all, there are lots of advantages with the Mac, most of which are aesthetic. However, for the cost-conscious user, the PC remains the only choice.

Your comments are greatly appreciated. I didn't intend for this to be a rant but rather a message to Apple that they are certainly overcharging people.

Andre

[Vash137]

Your whole argument on PCs and Macs is perfectly valid, but of course the better thing is more expensive! That is extremely obvious with anything anybody has ever bought. The best speakers for a nice stereo system are WAY higher priced than normal speakers sets you can get at Best Buy or wherever. Even though these high priced speakers are not that much better than cheap ones, they are far higher priced. This is true for every thing in the world. A Mac will cost more than a PC because it is just better overall. So of course those with out the money will get a PC instead, as you stated. That is the simple truth to why people buy PCs over Macs

[fryke]

I can agree with most of this nicely clad troll post, but no, Apple is not overcharging people. I know many people who are just about happy using Macs. No, strike that, they're very happy using Macs. It comes at a price, but the choice is yours. Nobody gave you the right at birth to belong to the elite few who use Macintosh. It's a privilege that is paid with money. And guess what: Apple doesn't make computers that cost 10'000$ plus any more.

Sure, you can get a cheap PC. Done that myself. But for my work I choose Macintosh, and I tend to buy one every 1.5 years.

[cellfish]

Originally posted by fryke
I can agree with most of this nicely clad troll post, but no, Apple is not overcharging people. I know many people who are just about happy using Macs. No, strike that, they're very happy using Macs. It comes at a price, but the choice is yours. Nobody gave you the right at birth to belong to the elite few who use Macintosh. It's a privilege that is paid with money. And guess what: Apple doesn't make computers that cost 10'000$ plus any more.

Sure, you can get a cheap PC. Done that myself. But for my work I choose Macintosh, and I tend to buy one every 1.5 years.

Why is it that when ANYBODY suggests that a PC is better, even if they know what they are talking about, they are automatically called trolls and berated?

The at 650$ is faster than the 3800$ Mac to start off so it's not much of a privilege unless being with something that looks good is a big privilege to you (which would make you superficial).

Now that I've mentioned that the PC is faster, the natural argument out of everyone here will be: 'the Mac allows me to work faster' which is not true

Loading a program is faster on the PC and executing just about anything within the program is faster as well. Menu navigation also is faster. Basically everything is faster.

Another argument will be: well at least the work I'm doing doesn't crash on me like it does on a PC which is not true as well. I've had AppleWorks crash on me repeatedly, Photoshop in Mac OS X.1 and X.2 crash repeatedly. I've had Mail crash of all things. Basically, there's no such thing as a crash-proof Mac. Plus there are people here who just recently purchased Macs, that with 1 GB of Ram or more and it still crashes so it's not even a ram issue.

I don't appreciate being called a troll either way when I am making valid points. Nobody would pay 2000$ or more extra for a PRIVILEGE. People pay that amount of cash to get more. Whether it's a car, a house or a computer, 2000$ gets you more, not less. From the 880$ I paid on my PC with standard configurations all over, I could improve my motherboard to an amazing one with FireWire and USB 2 built-in, I can get a SoundBlaster Audigy, I can get an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro, I could get a 21" monitor, humongous speakers that destroy your eardrums, a laser printer, a scanner, a webcam, a digicam and even a second monitor and it would still cost me less than a standard Mac.

I don't like to think that my hard-earned money went into giving some anonymous loser at Apple the privilege of spending it. I like to think that I actually got something out of that money. If I'm a troll for looking over two things, making a valid comparison and making a good choice, then what the hell is your definition of a troll anyway?

[ebolag4]

OK. Here's the short answer. The Mac OS just works!

Here's the long answer. As someone who teaches computer classes at the high school level, I have a hybrid lab that is a 50/50 split between PC and Macs. I also own two Macs and one PC. Between the two systems, whether you're talking hardware or software, I have hardly any problems with my Macs. I have DAILY (HOURLY) problems with my PCs. The PCs are newer, faster, and cost the school less than half of what the Macs did.

Remember, part of the cost of your investment is TIME. Speaking from a user interface point of view, the Mac is more user friendly. I use Photoshop/Illustrator on both machines regularly, and I ABHOR working with the programs on a PC. They work nearly identically, they are laid out the same, made by the same company, but it sometimes takes me twice as long to do certain things just because of the GUI.

The time I spend repairing student PCs is not worth the money we saved on them. One of the reason we keep getting cheap PCs is because we have to replace them about every 1 to 1 1/2 year. I have 10 original Bondi Blue iMacs that have never had one single problem. We bought 10 PCs at the exact same time, and do you know where they are all at now? The local landfill!

We are using Windows 2000 Professional on the computers, and do you know how long it took me to install that OS on 10 computers? Nearly 40 hours! An entire work week gone, just to install an OS on only 10 computers. Total install time to put 10.1 on the Bondi iMacs: less than 8 hours. Less than a days work!

I could go on for 40 more hours, but I digress.....

(Added edit)

OK, I re-read some of the statements, and I can't keep silent. When we talk about a crash-proof Mac, I don't think any of us are talking about a computer that never has a program dump on them, or a computer that is 100% problem free. I believe what we're talking about (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that when a program crashes on a Mac, you don't have to reboot your computer to fix the mess made of the OS. I repeatedly have to do this on Windoze, even in XP, even though Microsoft claims that I don't have to. Tell that to my computer.

It's like comparing my two cars. I have a Volvo and a Saturn. The Volvo, even though I bought it used, cost 5 times more than the Saturn. Which one do you think will come out better in a crash. My money's on the Volvo. They both do the same thing, have 4 wheels, a sunroom, power everything, and neither really goes faster than the other. But which one is still the better quality vehicle? The answer is obvious to me, and probably to anyone else.

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by ebolag4
...
Remember, part of the cost of your investment is TIME. Speaking from a user interface point of view, the Mac is more user friendly. I use Photoshop/Illustrator on both machines regularly, and I ABHOR working with the programs on a PC. They work nearly identically, they are laid out the same, made by the same company, but it sometimes takes me twice as long to do certain things just because of the GUI.

You say they work the same but yet the PC version takes you twice as long to do certain things, what are these things since they must obviously differ?

The time I spend repairing student PCs is not worth the money we saved on them. One of the reason we keep getting cheap PCs is because we have to replace them about every 1 to 1 1/2 year. I have 10 original Bondi Blue iMacs that have never had one single problem. We bought 10 PCs at the exact same time, and do you know where they are all at now? The local landfill!

Could you elaborate more on why they're "in a landfill now". Since PC's and Macs share many components (motherboards being the major exception), what was failing on these pc's that warranted throwing them out?

We are using Windows 2000 Professional on the computers, and do you know how long it took me to install that OS on 10 computers? Nearly 40 hours! An entire work week gone, just to install an OS on only 10 computers. Total install time to put 10.1 on the Bondi iMacs: less than 8 hours. Less than a days work!

What, you didn't just clone the disks? By far the way to go. You want to talk about saving money by saving time, purchase yourself Ghost or something like it.

OK, I re-read some of the statements, and I can't keep silent. When we talk about a crash-proof Mac, I don't think any of us are talking about a computer that never has a program dump on them, or a computer that is 100% problem free. I believe what we're talking about (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that when a program crashes on a Mac, you don't have to reboot your computer to fix the mess made of the OS. I repeatedly have to do this on Windoze, even in XP, even though Microsoft claims that I don't have to. Tell that to my computer.

Well where I am now and the last three places I've worked have used NT4 and Win2K and for us reboots are few and far between. Now you go mucking with stuff, then your hosed. And I also had to shutdown my pismo because the app that mounts .dmg files wouldn't work (it would hang), I could kill it, but it wouldn't work, so a reboot cleared things up. Then again my Win2K machine at home hasen't been rebooted in over a month and my work machine has been on so long I can't remember the last time I rebooted. So as with anything else YMMV.

It's like comparing my two cars. I have a Volvo and a Saturn. The Volvo, even though I bought it used, cost 5 times more than the Saturn. Which one do you think will come out better in a crash. My money's on the Volvo. They both do the same thing, have 4 wheels, a sunroom, power everything, and neither really goes faster than the other. But which one is still the better quality vehicle? The answer is obvious to me, and probably to anyone else.

Heck, for 5x the cost, it damn well better be "better" now shouldn't it?
"Quality" is relative. I have a BMW 750il, fast, quiet, safe, but maintanence costs are horrendous. I also have a Japanese "rice burner" motorcycle. It has one known defect that has bitten me several times now ($150 repair 3x in the last 8 years), but other than that, put gas in it and go. The motorcycle cost 1/10th of the cost of the BMW new. Which is the better quality vehicle? I've had Toyota's that were similar, put gas in and go that are significantly cheaper than the BMW. Which is the "better" vehicle? The answer of course is "depends". Each vehicle has it's strengths and weaknesses. Not only that, but peoples experiences with the EXACT same vehicle differ.

[Cat]

I don't know if it's a good argument or even very fair to compare the price of a brand new mac to that of a PC at an auction ...
Moreover all the free OSes and Apps you mention for the PC (x86) also exist for the Mac (PPC), so you don't really have to buy an OS if you don't want to.

The difference in price is obviously what is bugging you, so let's address that. Somewhere else there's a whole thread on price comparisons where you can check the price performance ratio more exactly, but the basic point is that Apple's hardware is more expensive because it has more quality. Apple chooses certain hardware components, not the cheapest indeed, for two reasons: quality (durability, performance etc.) and control.
The control they have over the used hardware guarantees an optimal performance and interaction between hardware and software.

You can go out there and buy a HD for $ 10,- or one for $ 100,-. If you just want it to be cheap, pick the first, if you want it to be good pick the second.

Moreover "performance" isn't just about raw processor speed. You would definitely have gotten bang for your buck with a PowerMac.

Your point is a very simple one, made often already and just as often proven wrong: bringing the issue up again is definitely trollish...

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by cellfish
Why is it that when ANYBODY suggests that a PC is better, even if they know what they are talking about, they are automatically called trolls and berated?

Well three things were going against you. First, you compare a computer that would be purchased from a manufacturer with full warranty, etc; against a computer that "you can get at an auction". Now that computer at an auction might be a major manuf. computer, or it may be something thrown together by the seller, we don't know. But to compare the two in price doesn't make much sense. If you said you walked into CompUSA (or someother retailer) and spec'ed a Sony, that would give you more credibility vs the countless "yeah, well I can build a PC from parts from ebay, stuff I find in my closet, and some cool stuff my buddy has for $XXXX less than you can buy your brand new Mac for" comparisons.

But secondly, and probably most importantly, it was your comment about "Apple certainly overcharging people" that gets peoples panties in a bunch. Those types of acusations quickly turn any "meaningful" discussion into a flame fest.

And lastly, most Mac people are tired of hearing how "Macs are too expensive, yadda yadda". It's a old argument. What's just as old though (in my book) is the counter of "it's just better that's why". That argument holds absolutely no water at all (and that's with as many car analogies as you can muster). There may be certain benefits to the Mac that may warrant a certain price premium over a pc, but it's a matter of degrees. If someone legitimately has a PC config that undercuts a comparable Mac by something like 2x, unless we're talking about some special case, there is no amount of "better" to justify that significant a premium. And this whole elitist attitude ("privilaged few" indeed) is very counter productive and only serves to propagate this myth of Mac fanatics that only see things through rainbow coloured glasses (sorry, I'm old school, still can't get used to these monochromatic Apple logos).