A survey of 200 iPod users in the United States showed that 6 percent of former PC users bought a Mac after buying an iPod. Another 7 percent said they intend to buy a Mac within the next 12 months.Also, Apple’s developer community has grown in size by 250% during the last two years, primarily as a result of Mac OS X and its allure to Unix developers, reports the Australian IT. Also contributing to the gains: Apple’s adoption and involvement in a number of open source projects and its embrace of the open source development community.
Analyst: 12 percent of iPod owners will Switch to Mac
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
So…12%, with a 200 person sample (of who knows what possible bias), and only 6% have actually put their “money where their mouth is.” It’s an interesting thought, but I’m not putting a lot of faith in this particular “survey”.
I agree the sample size is small and we don’t know if the 200 persons are sampled at random. But assuming that in fact 6% of iPod buyers who don’t own a Mac buys one eventually, this is big!
Apple will likely sell 4 million iPods this quarter, that translate to 240,000 extra Macs sold sometime down the line. Apple currently sells about 750,000 Macs per quarter, so that would be a 30% increase.
Excellent – Macs are great computers that fits most needs and pockets. From their ibooks and e/imacs to powerbooks and macs – probably the best OS in use right now in all categories. I usually build my computers myself for maximum value, but a Mac isent really expensive when you take all things into concideration – my next Laptop will be an iBook dualbooting YDL
.
Its just so nice to see a more competitive marketplace where its no longer absolutely obvious people run windows+IE. Makes you wonder how the world will look in year 2014.
>>Apple will likely sell 4 million iPods this quarter, that translate to 240,000 extra Macs sold sometime down the line.
Is that 4 million globally? If so, your WAY overestimating the 240,000 figure since this survey was only done is the US.
IMO this whole iPod phenomium is only happening in the US. Here in Canada, they are not that popular. My friend works at the local Future Shop and the sales there seem to back this up.The RCA lyras and Sony Minidisc players are biggest sellers.
Blah
>>done is the US.
in
>>are biggest sellers.
^
the
I type too fast.
I bought an iPod (mini) and I would also buy a mac if they weren’t so overpriced. I’m sure it’s worth it, but I just can’t justify spending 3 grand on a great mac when I could spend less than half that on a great AMD linux or windows machine. I’m not trying to start a flamewar here but I don’t agree that Macs fit most people’s pocketbook. In fact I’m sure that a lot of AMD/Intel users will agree with me that the only thing keeping us from switching is the larger hit to the checkbook. Also known as “The Apple Tax”.
Canada and the US != The World.
In Europe the iPod is very popular, especially since they opened iTunes, 80% of the mp3 players currently owned by somebody i know is iPod and iPod mini. They are just lightyears ahead on design and UI. Same goes for the people i talk to in Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway. If you want an exclusive MP3 player and not some ugly bad plastic taiwanese ripoff, you go for the ipod family, looks much better in the bus, at the cinema, café or whereever
– its like mobile phones, it needs to represent your lifestyle. Nobody likes ugly electronics 
.
Mac’s simply cost too much. I really would love to buy one, but I’m not going to pay 2-3 times more to have it. If they could find a way to have a price drop of, say, 30%, I think they would have a margin of sales high enough to more than make up for it.
Good news, I’m sure, but I wouldn’t put too much faith in an sample size of 200.
I would be interested in an iBook, but only with a G5 processor .. I’d be using it to make music so the extra horsepower would be nice
Apple is design. But they are not that expensive if you look at the value of the HW + SW. But ofcourse if you just want an ugly Dell to play on, well you are not the market for Apple. Id love a cheaper Mac
– ofcourse, but i wont hold my breath. The cost is a myth though. Id price MacOS X substantially higher than a Windows XP copy, that comes with no usable software, compared to the tools included with MacOS X. Not to mention the excellent HW in Macs, just dont get an extra stick of RAM in their store, that can be gotten cheaper elsewhere 
.
spank-da-monkey wrote:
>Is that 4 million globally? If so, your WAY overestimating the 240,000
> figure since this survey was only done is the US.
Well, only if you assume the halo effect elsewhere to be a lot lower than that in the U.S. But why should that be? The halo effect outside the US may be lower than 6% or it may be 6% or it may be greater than 6%. My assumption is that it’s close to the US percentage, in which case I wouldn’t be “WAY” off.
There are a lot of assumptions going on here, but even if you half the already conservative estimate to 120,000 extra Mac sold per quarter, that still represents a 15% growth.
I think this is great!
That sample is way to small to giv an accurate account. That is withing I believe a 4 to 5 +/- %. So you could be looking at a 1% of all ipods to new macs conversions.
I am a mac wing-nut but I just dont buy the results.
“Good news, I’m sure, but I wouldn’t put too much faith in an sample size of 200.”
I would, seems correct, just like any other survey that samples.
For the millionth time: you cannot compare the price of a Mac to a simply brandless PC or cheap Dell. Compare a Mac to ie. a Sony Vaio, then compare prices. I mean, of course you can buy a kit-car and build your own GT-40, but it’s not going to be the same quality as an original GT-40.
Oh, and when you buy that Vaio, you still end up with Windows or Linux
.
Same story here in NZ too. We don’t have iTMS in this part of the world yet, but there are a lot of people walking around with them. They’ve had quite a lot of presence in advertising from the retailers too, compared to a year or so ago when they were rarely seen and not advertised by anyone but Apple stores.
Vaguely interesting I guess, but statistics generally say what the writers want them to say. There’s an important corollary statistic to this one:
What proportion of ex-Mac iPod users bought a PC? ‘Cos if that’s 6% too, the net gain for Apple is zero.
And I find it a bit odd anyway that 6% of the ex-PC market are buying Macs – where are the rest going? Is there another 90% that didn’t buy an iPod? Or are they all going to Solaris on Sparc or something equally odd?
Either that or the statistic was meant to read “6% of iPod users abandoned their PC to buy a Mac”.
Me and my girlfriend did. She has a pink ipod mini, and a 12″ ibook. I have a 15gig ipod and a 1.8ghz imac g5. It’s nice stuff.
well i’m one of those, bought a PowerBook since i needed a fast, light, thin laptop with long battery power – that’s what i got and i’m perfectly happy with it – it’s not been a big change since i used linux on my intels, now i’m using it on the mac – works like a charm! – oh btw i lost my ipod last week but i don’t itend to either loose the PB nor switch back to intel
Count me in that 6%. I bought a powerbook this past March, and I haven’t looked back.
I don’t understand people who say that Macs are overpriced. A powerbook is an expensive computer, but so is a thinkpad. My powerbook has more default stuff at a higher quality than a thinkpad, and at a lower price. If I wanted a budget notebook, a $999 ibook is better than a $999 dell, both in build quality, software, lifespan, and so forth.
I guess if you’re looking to spend less than $999 on a laptop, you could try getting one of the 10-lb behemoths that emachines sells for $799.
Of course, I don’t know why I’m bothering to post. In every OS News post about macs, somebody states the “fact” that Macs are more expensive, when that’s simply not true. And someone else will bring up clock speed, even though 1) my 1.25GHz powerbook is faster than a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 and 2) my previous (and very highly recommended, if you want a PC) Dell D600 was faster at 1.4GHz than a 3.2GHz Pentium 4… blah blah blah.. why do I bother?
Anyway, my point was that I’m one of the 6% and I’m very happy with my choice.
Whilst I wouldn’t say my iPod purchase affected my decision (completely) as a new Mac user, it did serve as a gateway for Apple software that eventually brought me over.
Believe it or not, Linux was the final reason for me becoming a Mac user. I liked Linux, but was frustrated by the compile/install process for extending the capabilities of my rig. Doubly, I was driven mad that I couldn’t use all of the hardware I had in my notebook.
Solution? Unixness + ease of use = Mac. I couldn’t be happier! Honestly, the move was the best thing I’ve ever done computerwise.
You can’t compare a build it yourself, box with cheap hardware to a Mac. As one of the other posters said compare a Sony Vaio to a Mac and when you get close to hardware you get real close to price. Plus or minus a $100.
Also a G5, and G4 have much better Power/Performace than Intel/AMD chips(though AMD is better than Intel).
Compare a Pentium 4M w/ centrino to a G4 and a airport card. Battery life, Weight, hardware features, I couldn’t find something to match the mac in Price and Performace.
I found close, but then I had part two of my decision to go with. I am frankly tired of ‘fixing’ windows, It’s bad enogh I am forced to reinstall Windows every 12 months, And keeping up with it just bored me. Linux is good for desktop use, but for Laptop’s it isn’t there yet. Heck even Windows can’t compare to OS X for laptops. I just close the lid and it sleeps, Something my roommates year old laptop can’t do without crashing XP.
The reason why so many are going to switch is because the iPod causes these individuals to take a look at the macintosh and realize that when compraed spec for spec to a PC… a Mac is (at worst) equally priced and (at best) less expensive.
OS News readers like to compare the PCs ability of being able to buy less and pay less as being less expensive. i know you guys wouldn’t stand for it one second if I were to demonstrate Apple’s less expensiveness by comparing an eMac to an Alienware PC. Why is it that so many of you are so inclined to do that with a Mac?
If you’re going to suggest which of the two is less expensive, you must compare them side by side. And because the PC is more configurable (at the initial buying stage at least) then you must match the PCs specs to the Mac.
stop saying macs cost too much…thats so lame. 799 for a complete system is not too much.
“You can’t compare a build it yourself, box with cheap hardware to a Mac.”
Actually in most instances you can… and yet the Mac will still be less expensive. As a matter of fact, thats the only way to get an accurate comparison because most PC OEMs don’t build PCs that match spec for spec to a Mac.
Unfortunately, when most PC users do a comparison, they only match some of the features (the ones that matter to them) rather than all the features that come standard on a Mac.
I created a DIY PC and compared it against the low end G5 and the G5 came out less expensive. Sure, the G5 had better components and such, but we were looking for lowest price.
Yes, the PC allows you to buy less and pay less but that does NOT make it less expensive. Rather, it makes it more configurable.
That’s interesting. It supports what I was writting http://www.oberle.org/blog/2004/11/20/the-nespresso-approach-and-ap… recently.
Apple has the technology with OS X, the design touch and now a great ambassador. Add to this word-of-mouth and slowly they are going to win user after user.
Comparing spec to spec, Macs probably do hold their own, but if your budget is lb300, you could buy a decent PC. You simply can’t buy a Mac at that price.
If your budget is between lb500 and lb1000, then you can actually start comparing Macs with PCs.
If Apple started producing a cheap, cut down computer – something just powerful enough to showcase OS X, that may increase marketshare. It may encourage people to buy higher end machines when they decide to upgrade. However, Apple would probably have to cut corners, in which case the idea could backfire.
Peragirn wrote:
Also a G5, and G4 have much better Power/Performace than Intel/AMD chips(though AMD is better than Intel).
Compare a Pentium 4M w/ centrino to a G4 and a airport card. Battery life, Weight, hardware features, I couldn’t find something to match the mac in Price and Performace.
My response:
What proof have you got that power/performance ratio is better with the g4??? Wake up, it’s enough to do a quick search on the net and you’ll see benchmarks where AMD64 is at least as fast as a g5, at the same clock speed.
BTW, the “Pentium 4M w/centrino” doesn’t exist. Stop talking about things you don’t understand. Have the decency to at least learn that centrino is the name of a chipset-wireless-pentiumM combination. Also, pentium 4-m and pentium M are two completelly different things.
Just so you know, on my centrino noyebook I have 5h of battery life on the main battery, with the additional battery I get almost 10h of battery life – try to beat that with your mac!!!!
When I can build my own Mac, and go to the local electronic store and have a wide variety of mac hardware and get the same performance for the same price then I will buy a mac. Now this probably dosen’t matter to most pc users. But when John Doe goes to buy a pc and sees a $499.99 Dollar Dell, he will buy it over the Mac. Why because most people can careless how much better the hardare is as long as it will do the basics and its cheap. And I have never seen a $499.99 Dollar Mac in a store. But of course I hardly ever see Macs in stores. I’m a big supporter of Mac but I cannot afford one. Not for what I want to do.
I recently puchased a high end G4 1.5 GHz 15″ powerbook with 128MB RAM and the 80GB 5400 RPM and applecare for $2550 shipped to my doorstep.
I will add a 1GB stick of ram in the future for another $250.
thinkpad T42p can be had for similiar money…maybe a bit more but basically 2800-3000 for a tricked out T42p. Another guy in my research group has one and is very happy with it.
However, I must say…his T42p is faster (in general by 25-40% on computational stuff like Gaussian, etc.) than my powerbook but it doesn’t run Mac OSX…and the extra ram will help my speed some.
But Mac OSX has great programs that windows simply does not and a beautiful symbiotic relationship between a highly functional and asthetically pleasing UI and hardcore UNIX under pinnings. I love it…completely worth the price of admission.
Something else to point out: Macs hold their resale value better than PC systems, just look at Ebay…something to think about when making a purchasing decision.
I purchased a 20GB iPod last holiday season, and purchased a 15″ PowerBook about a month ago. My experience thus far with the PowerBook so far is that is is very reasonably priced for what you get. I also bought (for work) a hp/compaq nc8000 several months ago – it is roughly equivalent spec wise, and cost $400 more.
The PowerBook though, is the laptop I grab when I want to do anything – it’s a more pleasant experience, weighs less, seems to run cooler, and has a nice wide, bright screen to look at.
And it’s back to the price thing. Always happens…
To everyone who says the Macs are cheaper: You’re wrong. The laptops are comparable in price, I’ll give that; but the desktops aren’t even close. They’re NZ$3000 for the bottom of the line one, which are horribly average machines – 256MB RAM isn’t enough, a GeForceFX 5200 is a joke and a single 1.8GHz G5 isn’t particularly speedy.
Or you could spend $6000, which is pretty damn astronomic and the RAM and video card are *still* heavily underspecced. The processor’s now bloody quick, but so’s a fast Athlon64.
Or you could get an iMac, if you’re not interested in playing a game on it ever.
Macs have their place, but it’s a small target market who appear to care more about them being pretty than functional, and who aren’t totally bothered about price.
Tudy wrote:
Just so you know, on my centrino noyebook I have 5h of battery life on the main battery, with the additional battery I get almost 10h of battery life – try to beat that with your mac!!!!
I can work document or surf the web on my PB for about 5 hours on one battery.
I can get 10+ hours of battery life (from a single battery) from my PB by adjusting the power saving functions accordingly…mac’s have instant sleep and instant wake (it literally wakes up in less than 1 second ready for full use) that makes it very easy to sleep and wake the computer when needed.
I can watch two 2hr (4hours) DVD from disk with speaker volume maxed on one battery. I can run Gaussian calc’s at full blast for about 3 hours (near 100% CPU usage and tons of memmory and disk access).
But no doubt…centrino systems rock. If anyone asks me about windows laptops I always recommend centrino systems and thinkpads in particular. The T42 is the powerbook of the windows world.
If you get your ipod out on the bus, you’re an idiot. Muggers love them. They get stolen way more than any other portable music player…high resale value.
I can work document or surf the web on my PB for about 5 hours on one battery.
How on earth do you manage that? I get about 3.5 hours on my Powerbook 12″ when working in MS Word or MATLAB. I’d be keen to know how you got your Powerbook to last for the supposed 5 hours. What did you turn off, processor speed, screen brightness, etc.
Sorry, but I have trouble believing the 10+ hours claim.
I bought an iBook this year. Oddly enough, it wasn’t 2-3 times the price of a comparable Windows-based laptop. It was competitive, dollar for dollar.
Not sure why I’m supposed to be paying more, but a lot of people here seem to think I should have. Maybe I should go back to the shop and give them a few thousand dollars to make it up.
Desktops don’t have the same value proposition, but then they also don’t suit my lifestyle so I don’t much care.
That’s because you’re in NZ. Apple computer are quite competively priced in the United States and in Canada. Of course, I can build my own computer for much less but I have to do the tech support… Something I don’t really mind but that can be important for many people. Oh, and I have the choice between Windows XP and Linux… Once again, something that I don’t really mind (GNOME 2.8 is great) but that other people do.
Anyway, I almost bought an iBook 14″ last month but I eventually bought a Centrino, which is basically a low-power Pentium III (not 4) with SSE2 and a chipset optimised for mobile computing. It’s pretty pointless to have a computer where you can’t run half the programs you need as I do more than browsing the web, chatting with my friends, sending e-mails, watching videos, burning CDs, typing Office documents… However, I will definitely get one once I “only” have to do that kind of stuff on a mobile.
IMO this whole iPod phenomium is only happening in the US. Here in Canada, they are not that popular. My friend works at the local Future Shop and the sales there seem to back this up.The RCA lyras and Sony Minidisc players are biggest sellers.
The iPod seems to be a big hit here in Australia (at least in Sydney). I see quite a few people on my daily commute (~70 minutes each way on the train) and a _lot_ of them have iPods.
Macs are (relatively) quite expensive here, however, (eg: a basic iMac G5 is $2200, ~= US$1700, or about a fortnight’s worth of a somewhat-above-average gross income) so that might have an effect on the “switching” demographic.
I get about 4 hours of usage from a full battery. That’s spent almost entirely in Word, with Airport off, no music (on a crowded train with no headphones), iPulse running, some background processes (not using the processor) and the automatic battery settings were used. The iBook is the 14″ 1.2GHz one with enough RAM to stop a lot of disk paging.
look at the price of old macs on ebay, they hold their value, how many intel/amd systems are still usable when they are 6 or 7 years old?
Yeah, I also have troble believing the 10+ claim on one battery with the mac.
BTW, layton, have you checked the thermal/power consumption for the pentiumM? It’s way better than the g4 or g5. If interested, you can read more about the pentiumM at http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-m.ars and http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=1800&p=1.
@thom: I’d love to know in what way the hardware in a Mac is somehow innately superior. It looks nice, sure. Every PC I’ve *ever* used, though, is still working. And bear in mind that the first PC I ever used was a PC XT made by Tandon, in the late 1980s. We gave that machine away to someone with very limited needs a little over a decade ago. Works great. Same story with the 286 box we bought after that. The 486DX we got next was split out into various bits; I used the CD-ROM drive from it in my main box up till a couple of years ago. Same story with the P120 we got next, I think most of it is still being used by my older sister. My father’s laptop is a five year old Dell P2 model, mine is an equally old Sony. Both are still trucking along just perfectly. After that I built a Duron 700; I nuked the CPU trying to overclock it with the bridge trick, so I replaced it with a 1GHz model. That went to my younger sister a couple of years ago, she’s still using it. After that I built a Shuttle system which I sold when I moved to Canada, the guy who bought that seemed happy enough.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the hilariously old, heavy, non-batteried 286 ‘portable’ we have. Yup, that still works.
So where does Apple win? Except in looks? There’s nothing magic about their hardware. Sorry.
I created a DIY PC and compared it against the low end G5 and the G5 came out less expensive. Sure, the G5 had better components and such, but we were looking for lowest price.
Well, don’t keep us in suspense. Post the specs and price of the DIY PC.
Yes, the PC allows you to buy less and pay less but that does NOT make it less expensive.
Yes, it does. When $A is less than $B and meets the customer’s requirements, that means $A is the cheaper product, even if $B also comes with a set of steak knives and a blender.
Rather, it makes it more configurable.
Rather, Mac zealots attach unreasonably dollar values to certain aspects of Macs.
By the way, I didn’t said this to offend Apple users. That’s what I usually do on my desktop.
However, I am studying in computer engineering and most development programs are exclusive to Windows. Hey, I even have two or three programs requiring a parallel port, something Macs no longer have…
Ah… and my Centrino have a 5 hours battery live in “Long Battery Life” mode (I have a Toshiba Tecra S1), wireless activated, SpeedStep in Automatic mode. I have about 2.5 to 3 hours of battery life while playing Neverwinter Nights in “High Power” mode. That’s okay for me.
look at the price of old macs on ebay, they hold their value, how many intel/amd systems are still usable when they are 6 or 7 years old?
*Usable* ? At least as many as there are Macs. An old PC is *at least* as usable today as an old Mac (more, IMHO).
*Hold their value* ? Of course not – but since those PCs probably only cost half as much in the first place and PC technology advances quicker, that’s to be expected.
Every now and again I find myself getting suckered into an online discussion (I should know better by now) about computers and price. Normally I try to stay out of these debates but this time the discussion was regarding the average price most consumers pay for a new computer, monitor and software. The discussion came about after one individual offered his opinion that Macs are “too expensive” and spoke specifically of the new iMac.
Anyone who has done fair price comparisons between Apple’s line of computers and other namebrand OEM PCs know this not to be true. At least not anymore. Most of those still making this claim do so by making the mistake that because they can configure a PC with less, that PCs cost less as well. The argument makes as much sense as me pointing to an eMac, comparing it to an Alienware PC then claiming Mac price superiority.
Of course, its when you compare the two machines with the same specs, the price evens out. But because you can’t custom build a Mac like you can a PC, the PC must be equipped to match the Mac’s default specs. You can’t do it the other way around.
Because the aforementioned online discussion was taken off course, I felt compelled to see how the new iMac stacked up against its competition. So I started by building a PC at Dell’s web site to match the specs listed on Apple’s. The problem with this strategy is that Dell doesn’t offer an equivalent system.
The iMac’s G5 chip (even the low-end model) requires that it be compared against a chip in one of Dell’s higher-end models. Unfortunately, when you do that, the rest of the computer’s specs go up accordingly. You can’t buy a low-medium range PC from Dell that matches the G5 processor without buying a whole lot more PC to go with it. So to make my comparison fair, I realized that I would have to compare it against a DIY PC.
When I’ve made these types of comparisons in the past, the inevitable result is that some insist that the comparison be made against a PC with different specs because you can get different components for the same or less money as those used in the comparison. To those that insist on doing this, you’re missing the point. This is an across-the-board comparison to see which costs less.
What you’re suggesting is that the computers be compared on the computer’s *configurability*. Configurability is a unique and valuable asset in its own right, but for this article, were dealing with price. To get an accurate comparison we must compare the two systems as closely as possible.
Here are the specs for Apple’s baseline iMac:
OS: OS X Panther
Processor: 1.6GHz PowerPC G5, 533MHz FSB
Memory: 256MB PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM
Storage: 80GB: Serial ATA; 7200 rpm
Optical drive: (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Flat Screen: 17-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix LCD, 1440 x 900 pixels
Networking:Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet
Modem 56K V.92
Audio: digital audio output, line in etc
Software: iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand, AppleWorks, Quicken 2004, World Book 2004 Edition, Nanosaur 2, Marble Blast Gold
Speakers: Built-in 2 stereo speakers
Keyboard: Apple Keyboard
Mouse: Apple Mouse
Case: iMac case
Total: $1,299
Here are the specs for a DIY PC:
OS: Windows XP Pro – $145
Abit KV8 Pro motherboard (GigE and digital audio out on-board) – $114
Processor: Athlon 64 2800+ – $167
Memory: 256MB PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM – $40
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM – $71
Storage: 80GB: Serial ATA; 7200 rpm – $70
Optical drive: (DVD-ROM/CD-RW) – $70
Flat Screen: 17-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix LCD, 1280 x 1024 pixels- $400
4-port Firewire card – $23
Modem: 56K V.92 – $20
Software:
Adobe Photoshop album (Compares with iPhoto) – $50
Windows Movie Maker (Compares to iMovie) – $0
Ulead DVD MovieFactory (Compares with iDVD) – $40
Fruity Loops (Compares with Garage Band) – $80
Microsoft Works (Compares with Apple Works – $50
Quicken 2004 – $60
World Book 2004 Edition – $15
Nanosaur 2 – $15
Marble Blast Gold – $15
Speakers: 2 speakers – $15
Keyboard: keyboard – $20
Mouse: mouse – $20
Case: case – $40
Total: $1,540
The difference between these two systems is $241, with the iMac coming out ahead.
When making such comparisons in the past, some suggested that most consumers don’t spend this much when buying a personal computer. Instead, they suggested that the average price spent was only $500.
Knowing that I’m not an accurate barometer for this type of “average consumer”, (my last computer purchase exceeded $6000), it’s always been my experience that the average consumer spends between $800 and $2,000 on a personal computer. But without statistics to back this up, I kept my mouth shut. So I suggested that osViews (not to be confused with OS News) conduct a survey (http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=NS-Polls&file=in…) which asked what the average price others are spending on new computers… including a monitor and software. There was a definite trend leaning towards systems costing between $1,000 and $1,500. (The $500 figure is barely on the radar.)
A common thread in online discussions relating to this subject suggests that Apple prices its systems outside the normal range where most consumers are willing to spend. While a vocal minority insists that this sweet spot is the $250-$700 range, the results of this survey show that the $1000 – $1,500 range is most dominant. The two figures which also show high numbers are the $1,500-$2000 and $500-$1000 ranges. This coincidentally is exactly where Apple prices its consumer focused hardware.
The price comparison illustrates that Apple doesn’t charge the supposed “premium” that is often equated with their systems, and the company prices its computers very much in line with what the average consumer pays for a complete system. Can we finally do away with the falacy that implies that Apple charges too much?
Thank you, HR, for this well thought-out writing. I agree with you for the full 100%.
Anybody happen to know why the DVD drives in Macs are 8x instead of 16x? Just curious.
4 months ago I built a PC – AMD Sempron 1.8, 512mb DDR 400, AGP8X 256mb video, etc etc. I built it for roughly $800 using the newest parts and adding things like firewire, dvdrw and wireless capabilities (things standard in most macs). All the latest PC hardware that wasn’t too overpriced.
Now, 4 months later I am trying to sell it. Windows is a joke. It always will be. What kind of OS needs reinstallation every 6 months? This one had to be formatted (today in fact) because it became so horribly laggy, only thing I had installed was AIM, Doom 3 (the reason I built it), XIII, The Simsm Firefox and Nero. It was running XP2 with all the latest updates.
And yes, Linux is a viable alternative, but I don’t have time to fix drivers, recompile apps, hunt for alternative apps. Linux distributions have evolved considerably thoughout the past few years, but I want to sit down at my computer and just do what I sat there to do.
On the other hand around 2 1/2 years ago I bought a G4 933 for approx. $1500. I added a gig of ram, a 200gb HD, a DVDRW, and its still under $2000, faster than the 1.8ghz machine next to it, and hasn’t needed a OS Reinstall (only OS updates).
It always breaks down to the analogy of buying a Chevy vs a BMW. Sure, you could buy 2 Chevrolets for the price of one BMW, but that BMW is going to last you as long as 3 or 4 Chevrolets would.
I have an (now) 18 months old 1Ghz 17” PB and it does easily 4 hours on one single battery. I do have to put the machine to low power settings (turn the screen down, no bluetooth, no wifi, almost no audio), but can work continiously on video and such. I fly a lot between Amsterdam and Israel and am able to use that machine the whole flight (5 hours minus food and stuff = app. 4 hours) and still have juice left when we touch down.
I have had Windows Xp installed on my gaming pc for about 2 years now without a single problem. I don’t agree with the “fact” you have to reinstall Windows atleast once a year. If you keep it clean it will be just fine. Although the OS does suck and it shouldn’t have to restart for installing software to updates to drivers. As for the
“It always breaks down to the analogy of buying a Chevy vs a BMW. Sure, you could buy 2 Chevrolets for the price of one BMW, but that BMW is going to last you as long as 3 or 4 Chevrolets would.”
This is true to a certian point. I have a 69 Camaro with everything orginal (except the headers) and it runs just fine. But my girlfriend’s BMW is having all sorts of problems. To the transmission to the value springs screwing up. I had to replace the heads on my Camaro. It cost about $250.00. You know how much it cost to replace parts for a BMW? Basicly if a part breaks down for a pc you can get it pretty cheap. The same can’t be said for a Mac.
When I said “Chevrolet” I meant a low end model, like the Cavalier…something comparable to a Dell. Much respect to your 69 Camaro. (And all other owners of bitchin muscle cars).
And as far as keeping windows clean, read above. I had hardly anything installed and barely used it online.
In my personal experience macs don’t break. I can’t speak for all other mac owners though.
Ram is standard, HDs are standard, my mac even has a $49 Liteon DVDRW in it….the only thing that would be expensive to replace would be motherboard or processor, which in most cases do not fail.
fascinating stuff.
So, in that case, why does hardly anyone buy a Mac?
BTW, your comparison collapses (IMO) at the stage where you start loading it with useless software. Just because Apple includes all that software doesn’t mean anyone needs it or would pay for it if weren’t included. How many people honestly need Garage Band or Fruity Loops? How many didn’t get a photo program with their digital camera, and how many of those who don’t have digital cameras need one? Etc. You can get cheaper 17″ LCDs than that ATM, too, but your other prices are pretty good.
BTW, there’s another fairly fundamental flaw in the original survey’s methodology. It deduces that 6% of people who bought iPods subsequently bought Macs, and trumpets this as ‘extra’ Mac sales. Unfortunately, it fails to prove that the purchase of the Mac was consequential to the purchase of the iPod, rather than just happening to occur after it. Thus it completely fails to answer the question of whether having an iPod actually increases your chance of buying a Mac. To do that would have required a control group of 200 PC owners WITHOUT iPods. If more people in the iPod-owning group go on to buy Macs within the survey period, THEN you’ve proved that the iPod increases Mac take-up.
Of course, its when you compare the two machines with the same specs, the price evens out. But because you can’t custom build a Mac like you can a PC, the PC must be equipped to match the Mac’s default specs. You can’t do it the other way around.
The *fair* method is to pick a baseline specification that meets the user’s requirements and then configure both machines as closely as possible to that.
Of course, Mac people don’t like doing this.
The iMac’s G5 chip (even the low-end model) requires that it be compared against a chip in one of Dell’s higher-end models.
Your argument is specious. There is no meaningful advantage of the G5 over a P4 to the demographic an iMac is targeted at – particularly since OS X isn’t 64 bit yet _anyway_.
Similarly the use of XP Pro instead of XP Home. I imagine you went overboard with LCD screen and motherboard (US$114 sounds like an awful lot for a MB, but I must admit I don’t follow component prices particularly closely) as well.
As far as I’m concerned, you’ve just shot any credibility you might have had with regards to constructing a “fair comparison”.
What you’re suggesting is that the computers be compared on the computer’s *configurability*.
No, I’m suggesting a comparison be made on the machine’s suitability to the consumer’s requirements.
The difference between these two systems is $241, with the iMac coming out ahead.
Not to mention the PC has a far faster CPU, gigabit ethernet and a multibutton mouse. I mean, we are trying to compare precisely, right ?
Let’s also not forget that PC can have its video card upgraded as well, for marginal extra cost (probably the upgrade consumers are likely to want) whereas the Mac cannot.
(As an aside, this is my only real complaint about the iMac – the video hardware is disgracefully underpowered, particularly considered gaming is something a home machine is likely to be doing. IMHO they could have mounted a bog-standard AGP card inside the iMac with minimal impact to its form factor and made the machine a _vastly_ more attractive machine.)
A fair comparison would be to take one of Dell’s similarly targeted consumer machines and configure it as closely as possible, without going on with any bullshit about how the CPUs can’t be compared.
I’d compare with Australian prices, but Mac pricing here is skewed higher-than-normal at the moment due to the dropping value of the US dollar and Apple Australia’s reluctance to revisit its prices between product cycles – so the difference would probably be much larger than it is in the US.
But without statistics to back this up, I kept my mouth shut. So I suggested that osViews (not to be confused with OS News) conduct a survey (http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=NS-Polls&…) which asked what the average price others are spending on new computers… including a monitor and software. There was a definite trend leaning towards systems costing between $1,000 and $1,500. (The $500 figure is barely on the radar.)
Right.
And you don’t think that maybe – just maybe – a self-selecting poll on a website targeted at *computing enthusiasts* might skew the numbers just a tad ?
A common thread in online discussions relating to this subject suggests that Apple prices its systems outside the normal range where most consumers are willing to spend. While a vocal minority insists that this sweet spot is the $250-$700 range, the results of this survey show that the $1000 – $1,500 range is most dominant. The two figures which also show high numbers are the $1,500-$2000 and $500-$1000 ranges. This coincidentally is exactly where Apple prices its consumer focused hardware.
The other thing you fail to take into account is *what* people are getting for their money. Things like Firewire, for example, that most people have no interest in – the money not spent there on a PC may be spent on more memory, or a faster CPU, or video card, resulting in more powerful systems at the same price point than the Mac.
The price comparison illustrates that Apple doesn’t charge the supposed “premium” that is often equated with their systems, and the company prices its computers very much in line with what the average consumer pays for a complete system.
That doesn’t mean they give the “average consumer” the same (or as many) *features* for their money.
As I said elsewhere, if a PC gives the consumer everything they want – but has less features than a Mac – for less money, *then it is cheaper*.
Ok when you compare to a Cavalier I can understand that ;-). I don’t here much about Macs breaking often also. I guess BMWs don’t break often either. It just trying to fix my girlfriend BMW becomes a pain after a while. I’m thinking about buying a mac but a used one just because the Mac Os is the best by far. Something about it that seems to be slick, smooth and stable. As for a M$ OS it seems to be hit or miss. I know people who has had great luck with a M$ os since 95 but the only one I would say is acceptable is 2k/XP even then it should be way better. With M$ deep pockets they could make something really good but for some reason they haven’t.
That looks suspiciously similar to a price ‘comparison’ I’ve seen on here before. I shall say the same things again:
You’ve blown far too much on software, without looking for alternatives. It should be noted that you didn’t have to pay $145 for XP Pro, Linux *IS* a viable alternative for many people.
Most people do not need Photoshop Album, Ulead DVD, Fruity Loops, Quicken or Works (which is functionally useless anyway, OOo would be a much better bet). Sure, some people need one or two of those, but not all.
Many people don’t need Firewire or a modem either.
Obviously if someone did want Firewire and Fruity Loops they could have them, but the thing is they have that choice – with the Mac you don’t.
World Book, Nanosaur 2 and Marble Blast? Are you trying to make some sort of joke with them?
Personally I make it $1027 with your hardware, the two are pretty close if you add XP Pro back in (I wouldn’t).
I still feel you’ve created a ridiculous comparison though, by trying to find the same specs in a PC.
Last time I priced up a PC system it wound up costing about $1150 and included little luxuries like 1GB RAM, a FX5700 and such things which actually affect performance of the system – something Fruity Loops does not have a positive impact on.
In every OS News post about macs, somebody states the “fact” that Macs are more expensive, when that’s simply not true. And someone else will bring up clock speed, even though 1) my 1.25GHz powerbook is faster than a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 […]
And I guess the 68000 is a speed daemon compared to the lastest Athlon64 FX, right?
It’s perfectly okay to denounce FUD, but fighting FUD with FUD is a sign of retardness. Oh, and don’t bother to show me benchmarks. I am not interested to see benchies of Altivec-optimised Photoshop plugins against the same running on the FPU of the P4…
What!? AUS$2300 for a iMac G5 is el-cheapo, heck, the PC I bought 4 years ago cost me $3500; $2300 is a piss in the ocean.
I really can’t work out where people get off saying that AUS$2300 is too much for a computer.
“The *fair* method is to pick a baseline specification that meets the user’s requirements and then configure both machines as closely as possible to that.”
Sure… if we’re trying to figure out which machine a person would want. Added configurability allows for this. Its an asset that is extremely valuable… and yet it does not mean that Mac is more expensive… which is the argument you were originally supporting.
“Of course, Mac people don’t like doing this.”
Perhaps, but the greater problem Mac users have is the implication that Macs are both less configurable and more expensive. If a Mac user protests its because this is what you’re eluding to. The Mac is indeed less expensive, though just not as configurable. Sure, this may mean that an individual will pay less if they buy a PC, but only because they’re getting less too.
“Your argument is specious. There is no meaningful advantage of the G5 over a P4 to the demographic an iMac is targeted at – particularly since OS X isn’t 64 bit yet _anyway_.”
If we assume that the target audience is only buying a computer to browse the internet, read e-mail and write documents then you have a point. A G3 or a celeron would do. But the iMac is not your average consumer machine. Its for consumers who many not be very tech savvy but want to do big things like edit video, make personalized DVDs, make their own music etc. These types of things are greatly helped by the inclusion of a powerful processor like the G5.
All to often, PC users mistakenly regard the consumer computer using populace as ones who can not make use of a larger amount of power. The reason is because the tools aren’t quite as refined for consumers as those which Apple ships with its computers. With these tools, consumers can still be comfortable with their newbiness while also taking advantage of the increased power they have available to them
“Similarly the use of XP Pro instead of XP Home”
I did that because OS X compares more directly with XP Pro rather than home. Remember, we’re not comparing computers for an individual’s personal needs. We’re comparing to see which is less expensive.
“I imagine you went overboard with LCD screen”
Actually, I gave the PC screen a bit of a break. The Mac screen is wide aspect ratio while the PC’s screen is not. I couldn’t find a wide aspect ratio screen with those specs so I found the closest thing available.
“and motherboard (US$114 sounds like an awful lot for a MB, but I must admit I don’t follow component prices particularly closely) as well.”
It was necessary if we were to get the same number of options… such as digital audio out, digital audio in, firewire, USB2 etc.
“As far as I’m concerned, you’ve just shot any credibility you might have had with regards to constructing a “fair comparison”.”
And now you understand why it was done the way it was done.
“No, I’m suggesting a comparison be made on the machine’s suitability to the consumer’s requirements.”
Which compares on configurability… not which is the lowest price. Remember, the goal of the comparison was to see if Macs cost too much… are rather, to show that Macs actually cost less when comparing side by side.
As mentioned before, a PC does allow you to buy less and therefore pay less but that does not make it less expensive… but instead… more configurable.
>The difference between these two systems is $241, with the iMac coming out ahead.
Not to mention the PC has a far faster CPU
These two CPUs are very even.
“gigabit ethernet”
Nothing in my price comparison mentioned gigabit ethernet.
“and a multibutton mouse. I mean, we are trying to compare precisely, right ?”
If you can find me a single button mouse for a PC, I would happily deduct the price difference.
“Let’s also not forget that PC can have its video card upgraded as well”
Yes, this is a unique advantage, and something I eluded to in my post. The PCs configurability is not an asset to be mitigated.
“(As an aside, this is my only real complaint about the iMac – the video hardware is disgracefully underpowered, particularly considered gaming is something a home machine is likely to be doing.”
And yet even still, this fact doesn’t make the Mac price to be more than the PC.
“IMHO they could have mounted a bog-standard AGP card inside the iMac with minimal impact to its form factor and made the machine a _vastly_ more attractive machine.)”
I totally agree and yet I also understand why they did it they way they did it. If they would have integrated a more powerful graphics card, it would have cannibalized their professional line. I don’t have to like it, but I do understand why they did it.
“A fair comparison would be to take one of Dell’s similarly targeted consumer machines and configure it as closely as possible, without going on with any bullshit about how the CPUs can’t be compared.”
As mentioned in my post, Dells machines require that you buy a whole lot more computer which makes the price go up. Their lower-end PCs aren’t equipped with many of the high end features that come standard on the iMac. So comparing to a Dell config doesn’t show anything other than there are more options to choose from on the PC side… which again shows that PCs are more configurable. This allows you to buy more and pay more as well as buy less and pay less. This however does not make the Mac more expensive. As I illustrated in my example, the Mac is in fact less expensive.
“I’d compare with Australian prices, but Mac pricing here is skewed higher-than-normal at the moment due to the dropping value of the US dollar and Apple Australia’s reluctance to revisit its prices between product cycles – so the difference would probably be much larger than it is in the US.”
I’ve heard that from people before… perhaps it was from you on this board.
“And you don’t think that maybe – just maybe – a self-selecting poll on a website targeted at *computing enthusiasts* might skew the numbers just a tad ?”
I’d buy that if the difference was negligible but because the difference was so dramatic, I’m less likely to buy into that theory.
“The other thing you fail to take into account is *what* people are getting for their money. Things like Firewire, for example, that most people have no interest in”
My mother is a perfect example for this answer. For the longest time, I tried to suggest that she would be best suited by a Macintosh. I told her about the lack of viruses, the stability, and all the neat things she could do with ease. She responded by referencing the fact that she doesn’t need to do those things. I asked her how she knew and she said that it was because she didn’t currently do them.
After one too many times being attacked by a virus, I finally talked her into getting an eMac. Now she is creating music, making movies and creating DVDs. I asked her why she was suddenly doing the things she said she had no use for before. Her answer was that those options weren’t available to her before. Now that they are, she felt far more inclined to use them.
I feel the same analogy holds true from your rational why more people don’t use technologies like Firewire. Its because the platform isn’t as geared to show off these technologies benefits as is true with the Macintosh. When I first bought a Mac, my PC-using friend said that he challenges me to use any of the vast number of firewire ports that came with my Dual 2GHz G5. Not only have I used them, I’ve filled every port up with items I’ve connected to it.
“the money not spent there on a PC may be spent on more memory, or a faster CPU, or video card, resulting in more powerful systems at the same price point than the Mac.”
I don’t mean to be rude but its as if you didn’t even read the article. I addressed this point specifically. You’re arguments are all falling into the same stereotypical slots that every PC user tends to fall into.
” When I’ve made these types of comparisons in the past, the inevitable result is that some insist that the comparison be made against a PC with different specs because you can get different components for the same or less money as those used in the comparison. To those that insist on doing this, you’re missing the point. This is an across-the-board comparison to see which costs less.”
“That doesn’t mean they give the “average consumer” the same (or as many) *features* for their money.”
Correct. A PC allows you to be far more selective with your PC purchasing decision. Thats a very valuable asset and ought not be undermined. However, with this in mind, its important that we recognize that configurability does not mean less expensive.
“As I said elsewhere, if a PC gives the consumer everything they want – but has less features than a Mac – for less money, *then it is cheaper*.”
As I’ve said several times before… a PC allows you to buy less and therefore pay less, but that does not make it less expensive.
We can fudge the numbers to make either side look less expensive. You can upgrade the PC to points noone would bother. You can ignore the fact that quite frankly, macs often have outdated parts in current models (especially when it comes to video cards!). But, in the end, it all boils down to 1 very simple thing:
Price.
When people shop, what do they shop for?
The absolute best, all the time? Price no object?
Nope.
The LOWEST price. Period. Ask 10 people, and I guarantee that out of those 10, 8 will name price as a deciding factor. And what does a PC have, that a Mac does not?
Price. Ever seen a brand new mac for 300$ ? I haven’t. I can name 10 PC’s for that price though. And I know, they dont compare with a mac. And YOU know they don’t compare with a mac. But guess what 99% of potential computer shoppers don’t know or care about:
That they don’t compare with a mac.
They check email, browse the web, and play games. Get basic tasks done at home. Run all the software “their” friends run. No worries about incompatibility. And cost way less than a mac.
THAT is why a PC is simply less expensive, no matter how you cut things. For 99% of the computer world, they are, period. You can tell them about unix, PowerPC processors, yada yada, its all greek to them. But tell them that they can get this one for 499 with a monitor, and that ones 1100, guess what they will be taking home?
People can you people stop feeding the trolls!
We go through this dance everytime there are mac news.
Just stop feeding the trolls, ignore the ignoramuses, and let them go buy a PC (and go bald from pulling the hair out)
mini
Well I’m in Australia, and I spent about $1700 on a new computer, however I reused an old video card and didn’t replace the monitor. It’s an AMD64 3200+, 512MB RAM, 320GB HDD (SATA and PIDE), etc etc…
It’s fast, but it annoys me somewhat; the case buzzes and is noisy even though it was advertised as a quiet case, and the video card fans are b0rked. But otherwise its good.
I also bought an iBook G4 12″ for $1800. This is a dream computer really, so quiet and elegant and it just works. I don’t think Mac desktops are very competitive to be honest, at least for my needs. But the laptops are very competitive and the iBook 12″ in particular is unsurpassed for its price range.
I get the best of all worlds by having a PC and an Apple laptop. I run Linux/Windows on the PC, and OS X on the Mac. Life is good.
When people shop, what do they shop for?
The absolute best, all the time? Price no object?
Nope.
The LOWEST price. Period.
Hence the reason why Apple sells a computer for the lowest price in every one of the most popular price categories.
“Ever seen a brand new mac for 300$ ? I haven’t. I can name 10 PC’s for that price though.”
And yet this That does not mean the PC is cheaper. These PCs offer you less which means that they charge you less. Apple simply doesn’t compete in this price category because its not a very popular one.
“People can you people stop feeding the trolls!
We go through this dance everytime there are mac news.
Just stop feeding the trolls, ignore the ignoramuses, and let them go buy a PC (and go bald from pulling the hair out)”
We did that for so long, and they continued. See what it led to? A whole mass of ignoramuses spreading mistruthes.
“I don’t think Mac desktops are very competitive to be honest, at least for my needs.”
Mac desktops are even MORE price competitive than their consumer machines. Whether they are more sutable for you has more to do with configurability.
a Mac article turns into a frickin PC/Mac price war.
But I do agree that 200 is not enough of a sample. But you have to remember, all these so called experts can use statistics to come up with a number which NO ONE will agree with.
I just bought a three hundred dollar Mac. I bought it on ebay. I bought it to test some software I was writing with realbasic. Now I use it all the time for surfing the web, email, word processing… The stuff included in OSX is fantastic. The integration of all the programs is a wonder. Who says there is no $300 mac. I just bought one and if it breaks down the case is better than any pc case that I can buy for $300. Everyone of you can log on to ebay and buy your elusive $300 Mac. I did. I really bought a $300 Mac. Yes a Mac for $300. It is even fast, my 300 dollar Mac. Why do people say they would buy a Mac if it only cost 300. Here is where you but one http://www.ebay.com.
Perhaps, but the greater problem Mac users have is the implication that Macs are both less configurable and more expensive. If a Mac user protests its because this is what you’re eluding to. The Mac is indeed less expensive, though just not as configurable. Sure, this may mean that an individual will pay less if they buy a PC, but only because they’re getting less too.
Whether or not they’re “getting less” is very much a matter of opinion. I would argue that a PC user who gets a faster video card in leiu of a Firewire port or some pointless bundled software is, indeed, “getting more”.
If we assume that the target audience is only buying a computer to browse the internet, read e-mail and write documents then you have a point. A G3 or a celeron would do. But the iMac is not your average consumer machine. Its for consumers who many not be very tech savvy but want to do big things like edit video, make personalized DVDs, make their own music etc. These types of things are greatly helped by the inclusion of a powerful processor like the G5.
The P4 is also a powerful processor. As is a high end Celeron or Sempron for that matter.
There is no meaningful benefit to consumers at this time to insist on a 64 bit CPU. You are being deceitful by trying to insist the PC must have such a processor.
I did that because OS X compares more directly with XP Pro rather than home. Remember, we’re not comparing computers for an individual’s personal needs. We’re comparing to see which is less expensive.
Something that cost less and provides the same level of functionality to the consumer _is_ cheaper.
And now you understand why it was done the way it was done.
Yes, because you want to stack the deck.
Which compares on configurability… not which is the lowest price.
Actually it compares _both_. Despite your repeated insistances to the contrary, the relationship between “cheap” and “configurable” is _not_ exclusive.
As mentioned before, a PC does allow you to buy less and therefore pay less but that does not make it less expensive… but instead… more configurable.
Only if your definition of “less” is “not exactly what a Mac has”.
These two CPUs are very even.
AFAIK the Athlon 64 is a bit faster than the G5 per clock. Given the Athlon 64 2800+ runs at 1.8Ghz (vs 1.6) *and* has a much faster bus (1Ghz vs 533Mhz), I’d feel quite confident in saying the performance of that PC will be substantially higher than the iMac.
Nothing in my price comparison mentioned gigabit ethernet.
“Abit KV8 Pro motherboard (GigE and digital audio out on-board) – $114″
Not to mention that motherboard has onboard RAID.
Yes, this is a unique advantage, and something I eluded to in my post. The PCs configurability is not an asset to be mitigated.
Just FYI, the word you want is “alluded” (this is not a spelling flame). “Eluded” means “to escape”.
And yet even still, this fact doesn’t make the Mac price to be more than the PC.
No, but it makes the PC a much better buy for very little more $$$.
I totally agree and yet I also understand why they did it they way they did it. If they would have integrated a more powerful graphics card, it would have cannibalized their professional line. I don’t have to like it, but I do understand why they did it.
This is more of an indictment on the graphics cards in the Pro line than anything else.
Of course, the flipside is that it might have made the iMac a more attractive proposition to more customers, since it would enable them to configure it as a machine actually capable of playing modern games.
As mentioned in my post, Dells machines require that you buy a whole lot more computer which makes the price go up.
Uh, not really. I don’t really dabble much at that end of the market, but a Dimension 4700 seems to me to be a perfectly good match to an iMac and I just spent a minute configuring one of them quite comparably to the iMac for about the same price.
Their lower-end PCs aren’t equipped with many of the high end features that come standard on the iMac.
Like what ? The Dimension 4700 has a better video card, as fast (if not faster) CPU, 7200rpm hard disk, dual channel RAM, a better optical drive and a faster bus.
This is before even getting into stuff like replacable graphics cards and PCIe slots (which I am prepared to agree are somewhat out of the realms of comparing to an AIO machine like the iMac).
As I illustrated in my example, the Mac is in fact less expensive.
Your example cites a substantially more powerful and flexible PC costing marginally more – mostly due to “equalising” a software bundle. To use your argument, your Mac is indeed less expensive – but you’re getting less as well.
“I would argue that a PC user who gets a faster video card in leiu of a Firewire port or some pointless bundled software is, indeed, “getting more”.”
That’s the subjective part… (more or not more.) Again, back to the point… If we’re trying to figure out which costs less then the machines need to be spec’d the same. A PC allows you to buy less and get less. A PC allows you to buy more and get more. A PC allows you to by different and get different. All these assets add up to the PCs configurability asset. Not its price competitiveness. Let’s stick to the my point which you disagreed with. Macs cost less than PCs. So far, the only means by which you’ve tried to disprove that is by mentioning the PC’s configurability.
“The P4 is also a powerful processor. As is a high end Celeron or Sempron for that matter.”
Nobody is disputing that. I made note of the power of the G5 because you said it wasn’t a necessary asset. Despite the fact that more or less powerful processors does not get to the point of which is less expensive… I was responding to the fact that you said that it wasn’t necessary for consumers. I illustrated that consumers can and do have a great deal of use for higher end processors such as the G5 (and P4).
“There is no meaningful benefit to consumers at this time to insist on a 64 bit CPU. You are being deceitful by trying to insist the PC must have such a processor.”
The G5’s 64 bitness is only one of its benefits. Don’t negate the fact that its an incredibly fast chip in its own right.
>”I did that because OS X compares more directly with XP Pro rather than home. Remember, we’re not comparing computers for an individual’s personal needs. We’re comparing to see which is less expensive.”
“Something that cost less and provides the same level of functionality to the consumer _is_ cheaper.”
But XP consumer does not provide the same level of functionality as XP Pro. To get similar functionality, you need XP Pro.
>And now you understand why it was done the way it was done.
“Yes, because you want to stack the deck.
Not at all. I chose an equal motherboard because I wanted to make a fair comparison. Had I compared a more costly, feature rich mother board (on the Mac) to the less expensive, feature reduce mother board, THAT is stacking the deck. The fact that you’re interested in this type of comparison makes me think that you’re not interested in finding the answer anyways but instead defending your purchasing decison
“Actually it compares _both_. Despite your repeated insistances to the contrary, the relationship between “cheap” and “configurable” is _not_ exclusive.”
Lets get something strait so that my position is not misunderstood.
Yes, it is true that you can buy a PC with less and pay less.
Yes, it is true that you can buy a PC with different parts (ones that matter to you more) and maybe pay less.
It is also true that when you compare a PCs and Macs specs as closely as possible the Mac typically comes out less expensive.
As mentioned before, a PC does allow you to buy less and therefore pay less but that does not make it less expensive… but instead… more configurable.
Only if your definition of “less” is “not exactly what a Mac has”.
“AFAIK the Athlon 64 is a bit faster than the G5 per clock. Given the Athlon 64 2800+ runs at 1.8Ghz (vs 1.6) *and* has a much faster bus (1Ghz vs 533Mhz), I’d feel quite confident in saying the performance of that PC will be substantially higher than the iMac.”
Valid point. Swap the Athlon for a high-end P4.
>Nothing in my price comparison mentioned gigabit ethernet.
“Abit KV8 Pro motherboard (GigE and digital audio out on-board) – $114”
Egg on my face. Find an equal motherboard with 10/100
“Not to mention that motherboard has onboard RAID.”
See my response above
“And yet even still, this fact doesn’t make the Mac price to be more than the PC.”
“No, but it makes the PC a much better buy for very little more $$$.”[/i]
OK! I’m glad we finally came to this conclusion. What this means is that a PC is most often a better buy for consumers that need very specific features in their computer that may not be equipped in a Mac.
With that understood, far more often than not, the Mac is less expensive than a PC thats equally equipped to the specs that come standard on a Mac.
With these two points now established, can we finally accept the phrase, “PCs are less expensive than Macs” as a very misleading statement? I would argue that most consumers don’t know that when a PC is matched spec for spec to a Mac that its more expensive. However, these same individuals are already aware of the PCs configurability. When someone makes a blanket statement like that it causes individuals to believe that the Mac is both more expensive and less configurable… which is not true.
A better way to put it is, “A Mac is less expensive” or “A PC can be less expensive” or “A PC is more configurable” all of which express true statements without misleading others.
“a Dell Dimension 4700 seems to me to be a perfectly good match to an iMac and I just spent a minute configuring one of them quite comparably to the iMac for about the same price.”
The Dimension has a slightly less powerful processor, uses Windows XP home rather than OSX’s Windows equivalent (XP Pro), The display is less wide aspect ratio, doesn’t have optical digital audio out and in, no stereo speakers, and doesn’t come equipped with software equivalents to Garage Band, iDVD and iPhoto.
The Dimension 4700 has a better video card
An ATI Radeon X300 is roughly equivilent to the iMac’s NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM
“as fast (if not faster) CPU”
I disagree.
“7200rpm hard disk”
Same as iMac.
“dual channel RAM”
The iMac has PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM
a better optical drive
Same actually.
“and a faster bus.”
You’re right on that one.
“Your example cites a substantially more powerful and flexible PC costing marginally more – mostly due to “equalising” a software bundle. To use your argument, your Mac is indeed less expensive – but you’re getting less as well.”
Less in some areas and more in others. It is this reason why I’ve been so vigilant in comparing both machines as closely as possible. This can only be done on a DIY PC. Only than can it be determined which in fact is the less expensive PC (assuming we’re comparing equally).
I’ve been a Mac user since around ’91, and I’d have to say that it’s a hard case to make, saying that they’re less expensive. In the last few years, I see the GPUs in high-end PCs put the things Apple use to shame. The G5 iMac should have a GPU far above what it does. There are plenty of reasons why it won’t eat into the professional line (bus frequency is 1/3 CPU, not 1/2, lack of expansion options, relatively low storage). It should be able to play the latest games!
But then, with the initial cost value issue a loss for the Mac (in my opinion), why don’t I go PC?
Because the Mac offers ease of use. It’s not designed for the stupid, but it’s designed to allow users to focus on the applications, rather than the operating system. Sure, you’ve got a full BSD implementation under the hood, with all that entails, but it’s hidden behind an abstraction layer that makes it simple to use.
Could I handle a PC? Well, I’ve built a few, repaired a few, used Windows since 3.1 and work all day on them. I know them pretty well (well enough to know what I don’t know at any rate). When I get home, I just want it to work. I don’t want to be defragmenting, worrying about spyware, viruses or weird system meltdowns.
That’s why some people are making the jump from the iPod to a Mac. They use the iPod, compare it against the other players and wonder if the ease of use is built into Apple’s computers? Sure, the initial cost is a bit higher. Over time though, the ease of use and time saved in screwing around with the internals mean that it’s a better experience.
The study, self-selecting from a group of people interested enough to be online (ie hobbyists and not the average person) may not bear out in reality. But it’s interesting to see a potential trend. I hope that Apple’s marketshare increases as a result of the iPod. It’d be sad to see a monoculture arise where variety and competition currently exist.
@drsmithy & HR
“AFAIK the Athlon 64 is a bit faster than the G5 per clock. Given the Athlon 64 2800+ runs at 1.8Ghz (vs 1.6) *and* has a much faster bus (1Ghz vs 533Mhz), I’d feel quite confident in saying the performance of that PC will be substantially higher than the iMac.”
Valid point. Swap the Athlon for a high-end P4.”
Valid point??? No, is not a valid point..
The G5 does more per clock cycle than the athlon 64, and the athlon 64 2800+ does not have a 1Ghz FSB, the hypertransport bus isn’t the same as the front side bus.. Indeed some motherboard manufactures advertises their motherboards with a 1600Mhz hypertransport bus, but is not real. For example, VIA & Nvidia limits some of their chipsets to 200 & 400Mhz..
(I know this because i’ve actually have an athlon 64 3000+ and it does not have a 1600Mhz bus
It’s a shuttle SN84G4)
Anyway clock speed isn’t equal to speed, the athlon 64 could be faster at some tasks and the G5 in some other tasks..
The Athlon 64 2800+ 1,8Ghz is very similar to the G5 1,6Ghz of the iMac..
I’ll actually say that the G5 is faster than the athlon because some optimized applications for the G5 are much better than their counter parts in the Windows World.. (Example Motion, After Effects, Final Cut Pro.. )
The altivec unit in the G5 is sightly different from the one in the G4, so compilers aren’t ready..
The SSE3 support in the Athlon 64 is exactly the same as in the P4.. So Apps optimized for SSE3 will run better..
The G5 is a bigger technology break in the 32bits mode vs the G4 than the Athlon 64 is vs other x86 processor in 32bits mode..
Maxon says that Cinebench is only a 20% optimized for G5 processor.. Imagine how fast could it be if it was 100% optimized.. (Which will be soon in words of Maxon..)
There are also some BIG changes in the G5 that have caused incompatibilities with some 32bit applications like virtual pc..
In 64bits mode the thing changes.. Because the two are new technology wich need optimized software.. But this is like all transitions
=====
I think any competition is good, if you don’t like the macs (or how are they priced/marketed) don’t buy it.. But repeating yourself another and another time isn’t useful/helpful, well only for eugenia.. She should be happy for all those hits
I’m kidding
I love you Eugenia! XD
Sorry for my bad english..
Stop complaining about the price, goddamned.
iBook costs 1099$
iMac costs 1299$
eMac costs 799$
What is the goddamned problem here? If you’re referring to PowerMac and PowerBook, those are targeted for professinal users, like graphic artists & motion picture industry. And if you do either one for your job, prices are not the problem. If you’re home user, stay with i* lines. I bought iBook and couldn’t be happier… and was cheap. I also use IBM centrino (my work laptop) daily, and I claim that 1k iBook offers WAY better price/quality than 2-3x more expensive IBM laptops. I’d claim Macs are cheaper. You gotta pay shitloads to get any kind of decent designed PC.
Here’s one with sp/dif out for $74:
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=13-130-44…
yeah. they were polled, they said that they would get a mac. but they probably havent seen the prices yet. once they see the prices, they will just get a pc.
” 95% of statistics are made up n the spot by the guy who wrote this:
“Vaguely interesting I guess, but statistics generally say what the writers want them to say. There’s an important corollary statistic to this one:
What proportion of ex-Mac iPod users bought a PC? ‘Cos if that’s 6% too, the net gain for Apple is zero.
And I find it a bit odd anyway that 6% of the ex-PC market are buying Macs – where are the rest going? Is there another 90% that didn’t buy an iPod? Or are they all going to Solaris on Sparc or something equally odd?
Either that or the statistic was meant to read “6% of iPod users abandoned their PC to buy a Mac”. ”
nice try. poor fabrication, can’t tell if its sarcasm, or stupidity. 6% of ipod buyers went the whole 9 and bought a mac, not 6% of the “x-PC” market…you made that up.
It strikes me as accurate that about 12 percent of people who can afford to buy a 200-400 dollar walk-man would have the cash/good credit to buy an actual Apple computer. They do cost quite a bit.
Pound for pound is a differnt discussion….what people need to realize is what they get with an Apple desktop out the box. Decent video and photo capablities, solid security, a full developers enviroment, not code warrior, but its for free…and pretty good….a good word processor, system wide spell check, good networking tools and more. Plus, its standard. With a PC, you usually get an assload of preloaded software…but fact is its typically all but useless, and it varies widely from vender to vender.
I had an ibook for a couple of years, used it for lots of mid level nerd stuff, never purchased a piece of software for it once….it was fairly complete out of the box. That’s the best argument for the platform. Buy it, take it home, plug it in, get your broadband, and do your thing.
Bottom line in the whole apple vs linus vs windows vs whatever contest: apple is good for the industry weather you like them or not. Its nice to see them picking up steam.
Here are HR’s specs for the baseline mac:
OS: OS X Panther
Processor: 1.6GHz PowerPC G5, 533MHz FSB
Memory: 256MB PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM
Storage: 80GB: Serial ATA; 7200 rpm
Optical drive: (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Flat Screen: 17-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix LCD, 1440 x 900 pixels
Networking:Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet
Modem 56K V.92
Audio: digital audio output, line in etc
Software: iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand, AppleWorks, Quicken 2004, World Book 2004 Edition, Nanosaur 2, Marble Blast Gold
Speakers: Built-in 2 stereo speakers
Keyboard: Apple Keyboard
Mouse: Apple Mouse
Case: iMac case
Total: $1,299
PC specs for the same power:
OS: Microsoft Windows XP HOME Edition With Service Pack 2 -OEM -91$ OR Ubuntu “Just Works(TM)” Linux -free
Processor: AMD Athlon 64 2800+, 1.8GHz, 512KB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor -127$
Memory: WINTEC AMPO 184-pin 256MB DDR PC-3200 w/ Lifetime Warranty – 34$
Motherboard: EPoX “EP-8KDA3J” nForce3-250Gb Chipset Motherboard for AMD Socket 754 CPU -70$
Graphics: PNY nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Video Card, 64MB DDR, TV-Out, 8X AGP -61$
Storage: SAMSUNG 80GB 7200RPM IDE Hard Drive, Model SP0802N -54$
Optical Drive: Optorite 8X DVD+RW/-RW Drive Model DD0405 -47$
Flat Screen: Rosewill R700J Silver 17″ Active Matrix LCD Monitor with Speakers -245$
Networking: Built-in 10/100/1000BASE-T Ethernet
Modem: Encore 56K V.92 Internal PCI Fax Modem -6$
Audio: Built-in
Speakers: built-in with the monitor
Firewire: Link Depot AGERE (Lucent) IEEE 1394A 3+1 port PCI Card , Model “USS-IE4” -15$
–please remember before i give you the software prices that if you go with Ubuntu linux, you don’t have to pay anything extra on software–
Software:
ROXIO PhotoSuite 7 Platinum Edition (Compares with iPhoto) -26$
Windows Movie Maker (Compares to iMovie) -free
Roxio VideoWave 7 Professional (Compares with iDVD) -41$
Microsoft Works 8.0 – OEM Full Version (Compares with Apple Works) -31$
Quicken 2004 Deluxe for Windows -41$
Keyboard and mouse: Logitech Internet Keyboard & Mouse Bundle -20$
Case: AHANIX Silver Micro ATX Case, Model “X196 Plasma” -18$
Total with Windows: $927
Total with Linux: $697
Notice that compared to your mac system, mine has a 8x DVD Writer, Gigabit Ethernet and 1.8GHz CPU. BTW, I didn’t add the nanosaur 2 and marble blast gold, these pieces of software are not relevant to the overall value, they are just thrown in by Apple to make the bundle look good.
There you have it – the true comparison (if you don’t believe my prices, go to newegg.com and see for yourself).
Tudy
Point one, please remember that the iMac is a small formfactor machine that’s got virtually zero extra impact on space. A comparible “PC”(like a Mac isn’t one…) would be, say, a Mini-ITX formfactor PC(or if you want to be nice, a slimline micro-ATX tower).
Point two, with an OEM computer like Apple you get a certain level of support (at least here in sweden) that I suspect that you don’t get if you build it on your own. Can you for example get a technician to drive home to you if your home built box has got problems?
Point three, comparing Linux with OSX is ok. Heck I use Mandy 10.0 myselfe on my crusty ol’ Dell. But if you want to make a decent comparison you have to use a bought version that features comparable support. One might argue that “But I don’t need no support!”, but that is dodging the issue I’m afraid if one is to do a comparible feature price comparison.
I bought an iBook. I would never, ever, ever use an iPod, in fact Apple producing the iPod put me off using Apple machines for some time
I’ll have minorly skewed the statistics then.
The iBook was pretty cheap, but its virtually the same specs as my Vaio, which is just under two years old (1.2Ghz vs. 1.2Ghz, 256MB RAM vs 256MB RAM). And this Vaio is now only worth about the same as the iBook.
Sure, they’ve reduced prices a lot, especially from my last PowerBook days, but they’re still not great pricewise. Had I been looking for a machine for power-to-price purposes, even a Dell Inspiron 1000 would be faster. And its $300 cheaper here.
The thing about surveys its far too easy to get the results you want to see. If someone came up to me while I was drinking a coke and asked
(interviewer)Are you thinking about buying a mac in the neer future?
(me) Yes, I’ve thought it over
*interviewer writes report about how 7% of coke drinkers plan on buying a mac
as for the price issue
A majority of people who complain about the costs of macs are DIYers like myself. as many people have pointed out if you compare 2 systems the cost is about the same.
However, in a homebuilt system you recycle parts. If Im upgradeing my computer im not gona throw parts away if they still work and meet my needs.
Im not going to buy a new display, case, keyboard, and mouse when I upgrade. I’m pritty sure im gona hang on to my 2 ata harddrives even if I do decide to go sata. I see no need to replace my dvd+rw and dvd/cdrw drives. And if possible i’d try and reuse my video card unless it just wasn’t possible do to pci-express.
For me the cost of upgradeing the base system is under 350. not counting upgrades that I may make later such as replaceing my ageing fx 5600 video card.
Now for >ME< getting a mac would be expensive even for a lowend. But im not exactly apples market
I think everyone is forgetting one of the biggest demographics that currently does NOT have a PC :
Low income familys – PC’s are becoming more and more a requirement. I get more and more requests for PC’s from many low income families. They as ALOT about the pc’s that are often on sale at deep discounters. A quick search on google tells me that the average PC price is around 700$. With a plethora of 1500-2000 dollar machines, that must mean that a very large percentage of 300 dollar machines are being sold to bring that average price that low. I don’t know where you are from, but out of the last 10 pc’s I have built for customers, the average price has been 500$ Currently that is a sweet spot, and that even took a bit of upsell. Most asked what was in the 300$ price range. I am telling you, that is the sweet spot. Even if someone comes in for the “Loss Leader” like that, and gets upsold, not many are going to get upsold from something like that to an Imac!
When apple has the 400$ entry level PC, then they will have a fair shot at gaining some market. When you can show a mac alongside a similairly priced budget pc, and it comes out ahead, then we can talk.
While I agree 100% that a mac has the value of a PC neck and neck, the difference is that is around 1k worth of value. A new pc EXISTS at a much lower price, and quite frankly is all ALOT of people need. A mac DOES NOT EXIST for that price, hence why a PC is simply cheaper to MOST people. Macs start at 799, PC’s at 299, if you didnt know a mac from a PC, nor cared, which one is cheaper?
I made note of the power of the G5 because you said it wasn’t a necessary asset.
No, I said that what appeared to be your insistence the PC processor must be 64 bit because the G5 is 64 bit (wrapped up in guff like “the G5 is a very powerful CPU”)was deceptive.
The G5’s 64 bitness is only one of its benefits. Don’t negate the fact that its an incredibly fast chip in its own right.
I never said it did, but it’s the only meaningful difference between the G5 and CPUs like the P4, Celeron and Sempron.
Fundamentally, the only issue of any real concern to the end user is “how fast is it”. How it produces that performance is irrelevant.
But XP consumer does not provide the same level of functionality as XP Pro.
But to the home user, it might.
Not at all. I chose an equal motherboard because I wanted to make a fair comparison.
The motherboard is not equal, it is substantially more powerful on the PC side.
Or you could have used a PCI soundcard which might also add features like Firewire. The difference between it being on-board and on a PCI card is just semantivs.
The fact that you’re interested in this type of comparison makes me think that you’re not interested in finding the answer anyways but instead defending your purchasing decison.
I’m interested in showing why your reasoning is flawed in the hope you’re reconsider and rethink your position. I own both PCs and Macs, so I can quite easily “defend my purchasing decision” no matter which way you want to go.
It is also true that when you compare a PCs and Macs specs as closely as possible the Mac typically comes out less expensive.
Your position is meaningless because the primary reason it makes the PC more expensive is by matching up mostly worthless software bundles that Apple will be distributing at _vastly_ less than retail price and that generall don’t add much functionality to the package. They’re stocking-fillers.
As mentioned before, a PC does allow you to buy less and therefore pay less but that does not make it less expensive… but instead… more configurable.
I’ve got a better way of saying it – for any (reasonable) given task, you can get a cheaper PC to perform that task. The difference can range from insignificant (2%) to substantial (40%+).
OK! I’m glad we finally came to this conclusion. What this means is that a PC is most often a better buy for consumers that need very specific features in their computer that may not be equipped in a Mac.
Actually, it makes the PC a better buy for those who aren’t interested in trying to perfectly match up feature for (perhaps useless) feature to a Mac.
I would argue that most consumers don’t know that when a PC is matched spec for spec to a Mac that its more expensive.
And I will argue you’ll never be able to make them match exactly anyway – and that the pendulum can swing both ways depending upon which aspects you’re going to compromise on.
However, these same individuals are already aware of the PCs configurability. When someone makes a blanket statement like that it causes individuals to believe that the Mac is both more expensive and less configurable… which is not true.
They can buy a PC that meets their needs for less. Therefore it is cheaper.
The Dimension has a slightly less powerful processor, uses Windows XP home rather than OSX’s Windows equivalent (XP Pro), The display is less wide aspect ratio, doesn’t have optical digital audio out and in, no stereo speakers, and doesn’t come equipped with software equivalents to Garage Band, iDVD and iPhoto.
The processor is at least as powerful (I’m sure you like to think a 1.6Ghz G5 on a 533Mhz bus is faster than a 3Ghz P4 on an 800Mhz bus – potentially with dual-channel RAM – but that doesn’t make it so).
XP Home probably provides the same level of functionality to a consumer.
The wide aspect part may or may not be an advantage (personally I don’t like wide screens on computers).
Digital audio in/out is at best a minor issue.
It does have speakers (or did when I configured it).
The price difference will probably buy the software.
An ATI Radeon X300 is roughly equivilent to the iMac’s NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM
This may be true, my bad. I must admit I don’t follow which video card is the fastest this week.
The iMac has PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM
The iMac doesn’t have dual channel RAM (not really relevant to the 256MB config, but would make a difference to any config with 2 DIMMs).
Same actually.
The iMac only has a Combo drive. The 4700 I looked at had a Superdrive equivalent (8x DVDRW).
Less in some areas and more in others. It is this reason why I’ve been so vigilant in comparing both machines as closely as possible.
Unfortunately in your zeal to match up particular, mostly irrelevant features (eg: the digital audio out) you end up making other parts of the PC *much* better than the Mac equivalent.
This can only be done on a DIY PC. Only than can it be determined which in fact is the less expensive PC (assuming we’re comparing equally).
You aren’t comparing equally. Not to mention the whole idea of comparing a DIY PC to an off-the-shelf tool like the iMac is just silly.
Instead of trying to match up little things like identical software bundles, digital audio out and 2% differences in CPU performance, step back and take a look at the bigger pictures – can it browse the web ? Can it play games reasonably well ? Can it work with peripherals like digital cameras, printers and MP3 players ? Etc. Your problem is you can’t see the forest for the trees.
The G5 does more per clock cycle than the athlon 64, and the athlon 64 2800+ does not have a 1Ghz FSB, the hypertransport bus isn’t the same as the front side bus..
The (few) benchmarks I have seen comparing the G5/PPC970 to Athlon 64s suggest that _at worst_ the Athlon is on par on a per-clock basis.
The particular motherboard in the example *does* have a 1Ghz FSB, as specified on its web page.
Anyway clock speed isn’t equal to speed, the athlon 64 could be faster at some tasks and the G5 in some other tasks..
The Athlon 64 2800+ 1,8Ghz is very similar to the G5 1,6Ghz of the iMac..
Most benchmarks (which were comparing Powermacs, not the iMac) I have seen suggest they are roughly equal, all else being equal. However, all else is *not* equal – the motherboard in question has a 1Ghz FSB and dual channel RAM.
I’ll actually say that the G5 is faster than the athlon because some optimized applications for the G5 are much better than their counter parts in the Windows World.. (Example Motion, After Effects, Final Cut Pro.. )
I think you’re well and truly out of “typical user” territory with those apps.
The altivec unit in the G5 is sightly different from the one in the G4, so compilers aren’t ready..
The same could be said about the Athlon 64.
The SSE3 support in the Athlon 64 is exactly the same as in the P4.. So Apps optimized for SSE3 will run better..
But the Athlon 64 brings much more to the table than that.
The G5 is a bigger technology break in the 32bits mode vs the G4 than the Athlon 64 is vs other x86 processor in 32bits mode..
How so ?
There are also some BIG changes in the G5 that have caused incompatibilities with some 32bit applications like virtual pc..
I wouldn’t call the removal of dual-endianness a “BIG change”, with regards to how many applications would actually use it.
hey guys, let me please and this discussion about whether the mac is more expensive or not.
i own a new iBook G4 and iPod and im very happy with it, but..
if i wanted to buy a single g5, i would need more money then if i would buy a pc from dell or HP
my girlfriend bought a new HP machine, Athlon64 3000+ with a 512mb memory, a 256mb geforce videocard, 160GB HD, usb2, firewire, internal wifi, cardreader and more fancy shit.
including DVD burner
including 17″ TFT screen!!!
including Canon all in one printer
and 3 YEARS TOTAL WARRANTY
for less then 1300 Euro… ?????
seems like a great deal right?
now let’s go to the apple store,
if i configure the same system it would cost me:
Eur 2.687,09
and i still have no:
TFT SCREEN (adding at least 300 extra here in europe)
builtin card reader ?
All in one printer??
so how on earth could you say it is not more expensive or even cheaper?
just not true,
hey i just hate windows and linux, that’s why i buy a mac
not because the great design (it is, but i dont care)
not because it is such a good deal (there are better ones)
not because it is so cheap (trust me, it isnt)
BUT BECAUSE I JUST HATE WINTEL PC’S !!!!!
and osx rocks…
cheers
get an imac?
Tudy, again your comparison is very skewed and INCOMPLETE!
You omitted:
1. Garageband alternative (CakeWalk perhaps?)
2. Same RAM, Apple Uses Samsung PC3200 DDR RAM – cost more than the $31 you quoted.
3. The Cheap Case – The cheapo $18 case that you quoted does not include power supply. Everyone knows that Athlon 64 needs a fairly robust powersupply.
4. Monitor – Apple uses one of the best panels made by Samsung. Plus it is a DIGITAL DVI interface, so you don’t get any distortions. You can’t compare that with a generic ANALOG monitor that you spec’d. Take a look at the price differential between a DVI and an analog monitor. This is even not taking into consideration the view angle and brightness, colour and response time.
5. Build and Support Cost – How much is your time worth?
6. iMac’s memory bus is DUAL CHANNEL – read the developer specs.
All in all the iMac is pretty competitive in terms of price. You have to see it in real life to really appreciate the quality and how well the software integrates with the hardware.
Reading the post, with al the mistakes in spec and prices, i suspect the people who are whining about the iMac have not really used it and are simply just prejudice.
> BUT BECAUSE I JUST HATE WINTEL PC’S !!!!!
Dude, go find a therapist.
Are you a professional musician? I guess you are not, since you are comparing consumer level GarageBand to pro apps like Cakewalk (btw, cakewalk is not so popular anymore, pro musicians like me use CubaseSX).
The ram I quoted is just fine, it comes with lifetime warranty and I bet it has the same specs as the samsung you’re talking about (cas latency, etc).
The case is not the cheapest I found, in fact, I chose the nicest looking of the cheap cases, with the most good customer comments. OK, it forgot to include the PSU, here’s one: MGE Vigor Series 400W Power Supply P4 and AMD Approved, Dual LED FANs, Model “PSVG-400” -$23. That makes the windows-based system cost 950 and the linux-based one 720, right? I don’t know where you’re coming from, but to me there is a huge price difference between the $1299 Mac system and the $950 windows system. If you prefer linux you’re at almost half the price compared to the mac. Also, you are talking about the monitor’s quality, response time…ok, fine with me, but did you notice some things the mac lacks?? Like Gigabit Ethernet, DVD-writer, 1.8GHz CPU which woops a$$.
Sorry, but this is reality, my friend! Macs are nice and shiny and look very well polished on the outside, but to me and any true geek, it’s the internals that matter the most. And macs will always be 1~2 generations behind the current technology in the PC industry. I like macs, maybe I’d buy one someday, but the price is ridiculously high. That’s what stops mass adoption of the apple hardware and software. If it would be different and I’d be wrong, would the mac own only 2% of the global market?
To like and defend the mac/pc you’ve payed for is natural. But to be completelly blind, that’s your problem, go on, live in your dream world.
Finally, understand that my comparison was aimed at proving that guy he is wrong, there is no pc with this specs to go as high as what he wrote. He’s comparison is a HUGE LIE, and he should be told to take out his head from his a$$.
I have no idea if this survey is accurate or not. But, for those looking at things in black and white:
It is not unreasonable to think that a PC person buying an iPod would decide to take advantage of the whole Apple iLife suite and buy an iMac, eMac or iBook.
Likewise, it is not unreasonable for a PC owner to buy an iPod, really like it, but stay with their PC.
There are many shades of gray in between.
uuuhhh.. imac? oke if i setup a comparable imac 17″ at the apple store
1,8 ghz G5
512mb
Airport, bluetooth, 160GB HD etc. etc.
3 years warranty
then the price here in europe is: Eur 2.150,00
and my girlfriend got the HP machine for less than 1300 euros including an all in one printer and hey! she got a 256mb videocard instead of the ancient fx5200 model…
someone tell me why the mac/iMac is not more expensive then a pc?
really i love my mac but i just know and admit it is more expensive (not that i care) i know my iBook is still worht 90% of its value after 6 months compared to maybe 70 for the average pc….
guys just admit…
Forgot to put this in my main comment
Surveys mean feck all. Three weeks ago I had no intention to buy an iBook. One week ago I had no intention to buy an iBook… I just bought one because I thought it would be a nice small second laptop, and because I wanted a nice looking machine for a demonstration I have to give in January.
Intent to buy often turns out to be nothing. However some who never intended might buy a Mac next time theres a price cut…
I work at a store that sells both mac’s, hp’s, and custom builds. We have computers covering a price range from $350-$5000. Here’s the thing though.
We have a stock problem, both over and under stocked. We have too many pc’s sitting and collecting dust, and too many mac’s moving out the door faster than we can replace them. We are not investing in anymore pc’s because they simply don’t move when compared right next to a mac. And a lot of mac purchasers are purchasing a mac for the first time! It may help that we offer to help with transferring and troubleshooting the mac’s, but we do the same for the pc’s.
The truth is, there is no comparison between the two and when placed in the same room everyone migrates to the mac, falls in love, and doesn’t even give a glance at the pc’s. Design rules in this arena and the mac’s clearly have it won hands down.
As a short note, the people that do come in looking for a cheap computer, look at the pc’s, get a price, walk out, and then never come back. Perhaps they are getting them online; we can’t beat the internet prices since we have real inventory and overhead to add into the price. The mac people don’t mind paying a little over apple’s online price, since they get instant gratification and are already willing to pay the price. The ungrateful, cheap, pc people can go price shop elsewhere. We are not going to start getting into price wars because a larger company can always beat us, and besides, it’s just not worth it.
Have you used a mac? Do you realize that when compared to pc’s, spec to spec, the mac goes 2-3 times faster, and is about that many times more reliable? In order to make the pc compare you need premium parts, and an increased spec to match the same performance.
Don’t believe this is true? Well, thats how I became a mac user, 3 years ago. I traded my 1.2 ghz AMD Athalon, 512 mb ram, hp laptop (top of the line back then) for my father in-laws older 600 mhz G3, 256 mb ram, iBook, because I was sick of all the problems with windows, was anxious to try out OS X, since I loved freeBSD, and the iBook was almost 3 times faster at everything I could throw at it than my hp, and far more realiable (I had it running for 4 months straight without a reboot, compiling programs, rendering 3d models, and editing sound and video; meanwhile I had to reload windows on the hp at least once a week, make sure my contracts where backed up to an external drive, and reboot after 30 or so renderings).
I since then upgraded the ram to 640mb, and that iBook still beats most modern pc’s in almost any function. And we are talking about Apple’s G3 line! My 1.2 ghz, G4 pBook has seen no equal in the pc realm. The only thing coming close would be an Alienware machine I tested it against.
So before looking at price comparison, spec to spec, try performance spec to spec, then see what it would take to make the pc, price wise, perform the same as the mac, and compare the prices.
“An ATI Radeon X300 is roughly equivilent to the iMac’s NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM
This may be true, my bad. I must admit I don’t follow which video card is the fastest this week.”
Actually, it’s not. Don’t give in
. The X300 is ATI’s *current* budget video card. The 5200 was nvidia’s budget card in the *last* round (and a bit of a dog at the time, by all accounts). The equivalent to the NVIDIA 5200 is the ATI 9200, and the equivalent to the ATI X300 is the NVIDIA 6200.
I admit to buying an iBook after buying the iPod. It really is amazing how my computing experience has been improved by little Apple design things, like a nice keyboard and better program-launching and -organizing scheme. It just feels cleaner.
did i ever use a mac??
im typing this message with my iBook 1,2 GHZ via Airport Extreme
while i got my iPod 20GB connected via Firewire…
RIGHT NOW AT THIS MOMENT !!!
life is so sweet… the mac is more expensive but at least you are not wasting your time reinstalling Windows, or fixing, upgrading, configuring, updating, service pack-ing your freakin wintel pc !!
I KNOW AFTER TEN YEARS DOING SO!
so i dont care paying more, at least i got something that really works, and not only that, it works in a very pleasent way