MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

finally. MS and their buddies in crime have finally felt the effects of true innovation...

I tell friends, associates, and relatives alike: Even if you feel you MUST use MS Windows, at least run it on the finest PC made: the Macintosh.

Slowly--BUT SURELY--everyone is coming around. All I have to do is boot my Santa Rosa MacBook Pro into Vista (4GB memory, 2.4GHz), and their eyes pop out of their heads.

Fastest machine on the market, most beautiful, most flexible, AND cost-competitive. Only a complete and utter FOOL would buy a Vaio, Dell, HP, Toshiba, or the like after that.

Boot into Vista? Bah. I run XP Pro on my 2.8GHZ iMac. Virtualized. Son-in-law says it's faster than anything he's had his hands on.

Comparisons to Dell and HP are really irrelevant. Mac's may cost more or less for equivalent specs, but Macs come with Mac OS X and the others come with Windows Vista. And the comparison grinds to a halt right there. I would gladly pay the premium for a Mac, but since Macs have far better resale value and today's Macs are priced competitively, the deal is all the more sweeter...

Since Apple competitors are stuck with Vista for the next 5 years (or more), I don't know how they are going to compete. Apple becoming the top PC maker is inevitable.

@gwm

Yes, boot into Vista! Virtualization is certainly fast on the Santa Rosa MacBook Pro (2.4GHz) using Parallels, but not AS FAST when booted natively.

When one wants to show WinFanBoys that the Mac is the finest PC on the market today, one doesn't boot into Mac and then switch into Vista. One starts with what THEY already know. It has been my experience lately that we have to win these poor souls' hearts and minds one step at a time, hence the approach described above.

First the PC argument. THEN the switch to Mac!

I'm planning to buy a new laptop in next few months. I have compared the prices and specs of Macs and PC's. I can't understand how people can say that Macs aren't more expensive than PC's.

In Europe: The specs of 1249€ Macbook are very similar to 700€-900€ PC-laptop. The specs of 2399€ Macbook Pro are very similar to 1200€-1400€ PC-laptop. One thousand euros is a little too much for the Mac OSX and Apple premium. I really do like Macs more than PC's, but the price difference is just too much.

Welcome to 2002, Salon. Please to be catching up soon.

@ Terry

With any computer hardware you pay for what you get.

You can go into any computer store and buy a cheap brand laptop for £300, but within 6 months it will be dead.

You may think macs are more expensive but you havent considered the other things you get for free with ALL macs:

- iLife Suite (Best entertainment software suite in the world)
- Intuitive and innovative OS and gui
- NO VIRUS'S, malware
- Simple to use connectivity to ANY computer (and OS) on any network
- Rock solid build quality
- Global award winning hardware and software design
- iTunes in its native envirnoment (how it was intended to be used!)

Overall the average mac user keeps their mac for many years and even major OS upgrades (like Leopard) run fast on old macs. You try installing Vista on a 7yr old windows pc... (good luck!)


And this is what you get with a low cost windows pc;

- Bad compter build quality
- Every virus or malware you ever wanted!
- Sub-standard internal components and parts
- Poorly designed OS (courtesy of Microsoft)
- Complex network connectivity
- No IiLife software suite!

I know which computer I would buy - even IF it was (alleged to be more expensive)

Terry,

the point is that there are not low-cost assembled Macs.

If you compare a Mac to a Dell, HP or Sony Vaio with similar specs, you'll be surprised. That premium in many cases disappears.

Also, consider the resale value....

Believe me, the "Macs cost more" era is over...

Terry, the dollar is dropping, which, at least for non-US consumers this is apparently a short term good thing.. so let's hope that fact is reflected in Euro pricing soon.

OZZ,

My previous PC-laptop prices are from HP, Fujitsu Siemens and Acer. Maybe they aren't as good as Apple, but not a "low-cost assembled" anyway.

My point is that the prices of PC-laptops have come down very much in Europe this year (average price about 800€, maybe 90% of laptops are below 1500€ price point). About one year ago Macbook was very comparable to PC-laptops in specs and in price, but it's a different situation now. PC-laptops have come down in price, while Apple has kept its' old price points.

Shout this from the rootops: Macs cost too much so Windows is way better. Entry cost is the ONLY factor anyone should consider when making a computer purchase.

The war is over, folks. Microsoft won, Apple lost.

Your potential. Our passion.™

P.S. The Zune is cheaper too. Dorks.

when my dad was thinking of switching, I went on the Dell website to show him how much one with the same spec as the lowest priced iMac would cost.
It was over £200 more, plus the Dell isn't an all in one.

And Dells are fugly

MDN magic word: already, as in we already knew what this article is saying

Tipping Point®.

I hear horror stories of people and malware and viruses regularly and then i cringe at the price they paid BuyMore to fix it...ouch!
Spend the extra $ on a mac instead of malware and virus protection and enjoy the computer for what it was meant to be, enjoyable.

I spent about $2500 on the last PowerBook G4, used it for nearly 2 years and sold it for $1000. Not a bad return.

Before the Intel shift, I sold an equivalent PowerBook G4 for $1500 after 2 years.

It's a no-brainer that Macs are both the superior and most economical choice. One would think the Windoze sufferers would realize this, as it really does require no brains to comprehend.

As usual, most PC users don't want to admit that their platform is inferior and insecure. I spent FOUR hours last night running scans and cleaning out someone's PC. It found well over 100 pieces of malware.
After running numerous products, the system felt 50% better (well, it was an older P3).
I'll stick with my high-priced-selling Mac any day. You can't give me those 4 hours back (but I am getting paid). :D

MW: Price (go figure) - With Windows, you ultimately pay the price.

P.S., Zune Tang is so d@#n funny! His posts always make my day. ROTFLMAO!

Microsoft PURPOSELY kept Windows insecure to:

1: Reward IT for recommending it's products by giving them work "fixing" Windows insecurities.

2: Allow the snoops to monitor.

3: Create the anti-malware industry which in turn creates processor hogging code which tricks people to upgrading prematurely which helps Microsoft and their hardware partners.

4: Allows Microsoft to provide "security updates" to install more bloatcode and monitor illegal sales of it's software.

Mac's have higher resale value than PC's because THEY FUNCTION LONGER THAN PC's on the Internet.

Without bloated processor hogging anti-malware needing to be run to fix Windows problems, the Mac and Mac OS X can sail along at pretty much the same speed 5 to 7 years later than the day the machine was bought. Provided one doesn't upgrade the OS, software updates excluded of course.

So this allows people to get maximum value out of their third party software purchases. For instance people I know bought the $800 Adobe Package; Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign etc and still working on it many years later.

With Windows people would have had to upgrade many times because of security issues and bloatware slowing down all applications.

I haven't seen a writer use that many comas and hyphens in a sentence in a long time!

MW: felt-I felt run on!

Comment from: ken1w

<i>Since Apple competitors are stuck with Vista for the next 5 years (or more), I don't know how they are going to compete. Apple becoming the top PC maker is inevitable.<i>

They can't compete. When SJ moved to an open source version of Unix for his operating system foundation at NeXT, he assured the scalability of his operating system to handle the fabulous user experience oriented frameworks called NextStep. Microsoft left in its rotten underpinnings and most of the crappy frameworks from ancient times. Windows does not scale. When SJ came back to Apple and staged a rescue and then moved the essence of NextStep to Mac OS X, It was game over man, game over. It just took a little time to pay off.

And I bet the farm on AAPL -- five figures, accounting for splits. And that is shares, not dollars.

Microsoft makes it money selling a operating system and Office mostly.

So the more turnover it can generate, the more profit it can make and the more powerful it can become.

This is why Microsoft is the monster it is today.

Apple on the other hand doesn't make a whole lot off it's OS, rather selling hardware with the OS is the eye candy paint job.

So Apple does want to make more money selling it's OS, but not at the expense of hardware sales which are more profitable.

I think a lot of people are afraid to trust just one company for their hardware and OS choice.

Given the trend of glossy screens by Apple, I kind of agree with them. But at least one can buy a used Mac and it will still be very reliable.

""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," Manjoo writes."

he got it half right. Not so much a premium to buy but yes they do have great resale value.

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.

Funniest thing I've read in ages. For those who forget or, thankfully, never knew: Richard Marx

Oh, and Richard Wagner

Just think "Kill the Wabbit."

"You can go into any computer store and buy a cheap brand laptop for £300, but within 6 months it will be dead."

Firstly there's no way PC companies would stay in business if all their products died in 6 months.

Secondly Macs and PCs are made using the same components on the same assembly lines. Apple just charges you more for the same thing.

"Windows does not scale."

Except that Windows runs on 64 core enterprise grade servers with 99.996% uptime and Mac OS X users can only dream of such scalability and reliability.

This argument is old and tired, but I guess it's never going to go away as long as platform choices are treated like one is picking a religious denomination.

Macs have never been more expensive than a top quality pc hardware package with the exact same specs (or at least as close as you can get). I've proven this year in and year out since 1985. Can you buy pc's that cost way less? Yes, but my question has always been, why would you? And that last question ties right in with the reality that, whether you pay the same or less for your non-Apple pc running Windows, or anything else for that matter, using Apple hardware running the latest version of the Apple OS is always, and I mean without exception, always less expensive to operate, year to year, than any non-Apple pc running Windows. And again, this is not a recent development, this has always been true.

Try it on a small scale to begin with, you will notice the results before the end of the first year, and if document the actual cost of operation by the end of the first year, compare that to the initial cost of the Apple hardware, do the same on your non-Apple pcs running Windows, then compare the two overall outcomes, then the argument pretty much becomes mute. This is real-world experience in decidedly Apple-unfriendly work environments, at it has held true since I introduced Macs into the places I've worked since 1985. Bottom line, Macs pay for themselves, desktop by desktop, year by year, compared to any pc hardware running Windows - it's simply a fact.

But, it would easily be worth more money - meaning that I personally would be glad to pay more - if Apple was as committed to quality today as they were before they became so successful.

Setting a standard to be better than bad machines is the wrong standard.

One thing that disturbs me about the ultra-slim form factors: my older Macs (and I'm talking ancient here) still work while some of my younger Macs have given up the ghost. Factor AppleCare into the cost of newer Macs, particularly iMacs and laptops.

But think of all the Chinese laborers who work for so little money in company-owned housing just so that rich [middle class = rich] Westerners can buy polluting computers! Salon clearly does not have its priorities correct to recommend Apple to their liberal constituents. Where's Greenpeace when you need them, anyways?

Ignorance Abounds, you are either droll or idiotic.

Get Real, last time I checked "the same thing" means "identical". Yet you know that OS X != Windows (XP, Vista, etc). Therefore, it is not the "same thing" at all. Moreover, let's say that the hardware is identical (even though there are no news stories talking about how a MacBookPro == Acer 3003 whatever). Do you think that QA and QC are any different at Apple? How is it that Apple products last longer than that of their competition? Try not to think too much all at once. You may sprain a neuron or something.

Lets make this simple: Johnny Carson said that the reason divorce was so expensive was because it was worth it! Same with Macs. They may at first cost more than some thrown together PC, but hey are clearly worth more..Period!

Hey Zune Tang,

Are you just here to make a poor attempt at antagonizing us or are you really that much of a fucking moron? Windows is better? What do you do for a living? Work for MS and Steve "Fat ass" Ballmer? Or are you Steve Ballmer? Do you know anything about IT? Or are you just trying to be an asshole?

I am not an Apple "cultist". I am a technology expert. I take pride in the fact that I know what the market has to offer, and what is good and what is shit. Vista is SHIT. Zune is diarrhea. (Hate to say it, but I do like my X-Box, but MS has fucked that up too). So when I say Mac OS X is far superior to anything those hacks in Redmond offer in terms of an OS, I know what I'm talking about.

So you can call us dorks or whatever, but if you think you are getting some kind of rise out of this, you're a complete whack job. You are the idiot, so fuck off already.

OK, comparing Richard Wagner to Richard Marx is classic. Nice job!

@ BuTSOI

Your smugness is exceeded only by your condescension.

Sorry that we can't all be as intellectually superior as you appear to be. (poser)

Why can't we all just get along? : (

Ferf, Zune Tang is satire - you're new here, aren't you? It's a joke. Read more his postings, perhaps then you'll understand and calm down.

Comparing Vista to Richard Marx is an unimaginable insult to Richard Marx. Whose music, by the way, I did very much enjoy in the 80s.

@ Ignorance Abounds: You do know, of course, that the $129 spent on the one version of Leopard gets you enterprise-class, 64-bit, Unix, right? You did make sure you picked the right version of Vista to get 64-bit, right? As for high-uptime servers, how 'bout an Xserve? Windows can't touch Unix for uptime and stability.

(Why do I now have the dirty feeling that I just replied to a troll.)

Oh, and scalabillity, I got your scalability.

I don't know where you people get your numbers from (can you say fabricated?) but I work with both platforms equally and what I have found is that it is all about the end user. If you have a user who only knows how to do what they need to do, then they both require the same amount of support. As for hardware costs, I can purchase two PCs for the price of one Mac (yes, equal specs). The big difference is that I am getting a 5 year warranty on hardware with the PCs and one with the Mac. Now don't go off telling me Macs never break down because I have seen just as many MacBooks and iMacs with broken bits and pieces go through repair as the PCs. The difference? It doesn't cost me anything to repair the PC (did I mention the 5 year warranty?) while it is cheaper to buy a new Mac than it is to replace a main board.

@Get Real,
OK. 6 months may be an exaggeration, but the average PC user buys a new computer (desktop or laptop) every 18 months!

My Cube = over 7 years old
My PowerBook = over 3 years old

Now, which is the better buy?

Some Mac users who post here have asked why we even bother with anything except Mac specific news - I hope you're getting your answer on this thread. It seems like the more unhappy MS product users get with MS in general, the more they start looking for people to take it out on, everyone except MS of course.

I appreciated the almost real-world comments from "Mags", that is, right up until the last line which is clearly misleading and without perspective. If the Mac you're repairing is two years old or older (which is most likely the scenario in Mags case - since we're left to guess), chances are very good you can get the logic board for less than $100, and if the Mac is older than three years probably less than $30 bucks. I find power supplies for the various Macs, old and new, run roughly the same (used) as pc supplies. What I do appreciate about Mags comments are that the whole idea that when you go all Macs that you can fire your IT people is bogus, Macs do break down, people do need training, and network infrastructures need constant care and upgrading even if they're not based on MS products. If you've got a shop with more than four or five Macs, and you don't have IT people, then you're beginning to know what I mean. I'm in a shop with about 20 Macs and myself and another person do it all because our IT people "don't do Macs". We need Mac support from our IT department. (I also concure that Apple quality has slipped recently, and I think Apple needs to address this and stop trying to hook into the extended warranty gamble.)

As for "Woody's" comments, the article he pointed to is very good and heres the working link (I hope): <a href="http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/vatech2/">

Harmonizing with "Cubert", I finally had to give away my Beige G3 cause it kept going and going. Last year I finally sold my SE/30 with 3rd party video card - and it was still working great, and I sold a Color Classic, also still working great. I did replace the p/s on the SE/30 once after a power surge smoked it, but that was the only repair that was ever done to it.

My bottom line: The already well repeated fact is that, even if you can't see your own way to anything other than Windows and related hardware, Macs:
1. Do cost less to operate - period.
2. Are definitely no worse than using Windows at any level, network to desktop, and on that premise alone are worth a try.

The link again:
XSystem

"Leopard gets you enterprise-class, 64-bit, Unix, right? "

Wrong, it gets you cut down home grade Unix, which runs, at best, on a fairly low end server platform.

What's the best Mac server you can buy? A 1U system which may make a nice home, workgroup or small office server, but is certainly not "Enterprise Class"

"Shout this from the rootops: Macs cost too much so Windows is way better. Entry cost is the ONLY factor anyone should consider when making a computer purchase."

It's good to see the change from PC's being the better computer to PC's being ... just cheap.

I agree that they PC's are 'less expensive" to buy, if you just by off the shelf. My office uses 2 PC's (1 custom built, 1 out of the box Dell) and 6 Mac's (2 eMac, 1 iMac, 2 Mac Mini's, 1 G3 tower). The PC's have been rotated due to break downs and fry outs about every 2.5 years. We thought that having the 1 custom made would help greatly as it would be just as we needed, but even that one has needed a new hard drive, a power supply, and something on one of the boards- I don't know what it was, but it didn't allow the computer to start up properly. Just the one custom PC has cost us about $400 in repairs this year. All in all, we spend an average of $200 to $250 a year on PC repairs- which doesn't include $$ for time down and travel time to take the computers to the repair shop. The other 6 Macs have never been in for any service (the G3 we have had since 1995 I believe). All in all, in 15 years, we have gone through a total of 7 PC's (plus the 2 we currently have) that broke down or were completely obsolete. We added Apple products for expanding business. The PC's were there only due to 'non-apple' applications such as UPS World Ship application. The Macs have been real work horses and haven't cost us a dime for upkeep (other than updates for OS's). Since the onset of the Macs being able to have Windows on them, we do not have a need for the PC's any longer and when the PC's break down, they will be replaced by iMacs. It just makes business better for us.
So, when, "Macs cost too much so Windows is way better." comes out...I have to agree that PC's are CHEAP, but not a good investment.

@ Ferf Muckmeyer,

Your response wasn't a rise? Seemed like a rise to me.

BTW, Zune Tang was presenting satire, so it looks like your rise was for nothing except comedy for all of us...

You fucking idiot

Grigorio,

Thanks to you for letting me know about the "satire" - I'm not new here but have not been posting alot. So my sincere apologies to Zune Tang - keep up the good work.

And @ Jerry T, who wasn't as pleasant as Grigorio, give me a fucking break. why don't you just fuck off.

I agree with Terry. I do not live in the USA. Where I am (in Asia), Macs are way too overpriced for the performance they deliver. For example, most PC manufacturers are shipping with 2GB worth of RAM. Apple still ships iMacs with 1GB. Would it kill Steve Jobs to upgrade the amount of RAM in the iMac so that I can run multiple applications all at once? Leopard really is a better operating system than Vista. But for what is essentially an Intel-based machine, Apple charges far too high a premium. I can build an Intel-based no brand PC for less than $400. The nearest equivalent, the Mac mini has scaled down laptop specifications and crippled hardware. If I can't make an economic argument for getting a Mac, I'll stick to using a PC, despite all the attendant pain because I can easily get software for an OS that's being used by 99% of the world's population. In Asia, Macs really are for loners and losers. Enough said.