[spider]

Look, if you think BMWs are a waste of money and you're perfectly happy driving your Ford from point A to B, then great. But don't assume that others only buy luxury cars to be fashionable.

Many people appreciate things that are well-designed and computers are no exception. There's nothing wrong with a premium if the overall experience is worth it to a given individual and there's no reason for them to have to justify anything.

I doubt if the little lady that just parked her $150,000 Mercedes at the Granite Club has a clue about the supposed mechanical superiority of her vehicle but she sure as hell knows that is probably the most expensive car in the lot. Would she be driving it if the badging read "Chevrolet"?

 

[CityPlaceN1]

So those of us using Macs are doing so because its fashionable? That's plain silly.

 

[w.ll.am]

Then I guess you're silly. There's no difference in components yet you are paying a premium. Why? Because it looks pretty. Sorry but it's true.

Every program other than the ones that Apple makes are made for the PC first and then Apple as an afterthought. This makes the software more prone to crashes. Memory leaks etc.

This is about the only difference. Both UI's are pretty much identical these days.

Mac does handle multiprocessor better natively but few people really utilize the power of multiprocessors. Also anyone needing that kind of power for rendering or whatnot is better off sending their stuff off to render farms.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Some people really like working in Mac OS X as opposed to Windows. These people aren't stupid. (I'm one of them.) There are a ton of differences in workflow, application management, etc. I think MS has done a really nice job with Windows 7, but I'd never give up OS X at this point. It works better for me.

 

[MetroMan]

Every program other than the ones that Apple makes are made for the PC first and then Apple as an afterthought. This makes the software more prone to crashes. Memory leaks etc.

You really have no clue. The developer community for OSX is huge and ever growing. Look at the annual World Wide Developers Convention attendance for a hint. You make it sound like Apple is the only one developing specifically for OSX.

here's no difference in components yet you are paying a premium. Why? Because it looks pretty. Sorry but it's true.

No it's not true. While you can put together most of a Mac with identical PC components, the difference is in how the OS uses that hardware. Look to OSX Snow Leopard to see how it can wield the power of GPU's and multicore processors without the need for complex coding for example.

While new Windows releases have required increasingly more powerful hardware, new versions of OSX breath new life into old hardware.

 

[AGTO]

You really have no clue.

Always a good comeback...when you have nothing.

While you can put together most of a Mac with identical PC components, the difference is in how the OS uses that hardware.

So, now it's all about the OS.

You really have no clue.

 

[MetroMan]

Always a good comeback...when you have nothing.

No, it's a deliberate statement. His words demonstrate that he literally has no clue.

So, now it's all about the OS.

No, it's about the Hardware + the OS.

 

[w.ll.am]

You really have no clue. The developer community for OSX is huge and ever growing. Look at the annual World Wide Developers Convention attendance for a hint. You make it sound like Apple is the only one developing specifically for OSX.

Apple holds 10% of the pc market. That means anyone developing for OSX is developing for 10% of the market. That's good business right there. You are the one with no clue. Anyone with a good business product is going to release for PC first. Period.

Much like anyone programming a game will ideally release for XBox first and other systems 2nd and PC last. Volume of profits drives industry.

No it's not true. While you can put together most of a Mac with identical PC components, the difference is in how the OS uses that hardware. Look to OSX Snow Leopard to see how it can wield the power of GPU's and multicore processors without the need for complex coding for example.

I mentioned multiprocessor in my post acknowledging that it was something that Mac programmed better for. Most people don't need that functionality though.

While new Windows releases have required increasingly more powerful hardware, new versions of OSX breath new life into old hardware.

Again ... false. The newest versions of OSX will not install on a Powerbook G4 or lower. A powerbook G4 is about 5 years old. Windows XP however will install on any PC that's been made in the last 10 years.

As well all upgrades of OSX have to be paid for. This is 5 upgrades in the last 5 years. This ends up costing far more than XP which has come with countless updates plus 3 major service packs for free.

OSX is a fine system. So is Windows. For the price point it's not worth having a Mac.

I will give Mac one other thing though... The Mac monitors and LCD screens annihilate the quality of any mid range computers. I'm not sure who the comparable competitor is for LCD monitors but you can look at them from any angle and they look great.

 

[afransen]

Look. For some people, BMWs are worth it. However, you can't deny that the premium is largely a matter of the badge on the front. A 3 series doesn't cost twice as much to produce as a Ford Fusion. It's a better car, to be sure. Is it 100% better? I'm skeptical.

Macs, perhaps, are better. Is the premium in price all due to higher standards of production? Of course not. Much of the premium is brand premium. If you made OSX look like a frumpy install of XP and ran it on the same hardware mounted in a Toshiba Satellite chassis, would it be worth as much, despite essentially being the same computer?

 

[lordmandeep]

Vista really hurt Microsoft.

Xp was just to good for them...

 

[syn]

Look, if you think BMWs are a waste of money and you're perfectly happy driving your Ford from point A to B, then great. But don't assume that others only buy luxury cars to be fashionable.

Many people appreciate things that are well-designed and computers are no exception. There's nothing wrong with a premium if the overall experience is worth it to a given individual and there's no reason for them to have to justify anything.

Sure, you could supe up your Ford until its paper specs exceeded those of an equivalently priced BMW, but would you really have the same thing at that point?

Do you people enjoy anything in life?

That's fine. If one prefers Mac and experience it provides that's great.

You can apply that reasoning to any kind of computer user though, regardless of whether it's a Mac or a PC. The point that's being made is that you can find a quality PC for a more affordable price...and it's quite possible it will work flawlessly for most people.

I'm going to be putting a new system together soon which will come in at under $2000, and I can guarantee you it will use better components and be more powerful than a Mac of a comparable price.

I can also tell you my Windows system hasn't crashed in many years, even if I've had it on for days at a time. Quality and reliability aren't exclusive to Apple, yet their pretentious marketing and Apple fans would have people believe otherwise.

 

[syn]

You really have no clue. The developer community for OSX is huge and ever growing. Look at the annual World Wide Developers Convention attendance for a hint. You make it sound like Apple is the only one developing specifically for OSX.

It still doesn't compare to the PC developer market.

No it's not true. While you can put together most of a Mac with identical PC components, the difference is in how the OS uses that hardware. Look to OSX Snow Leopard to see how it can wield the power of GPU's and multicore processors without the need for complex coding for example.

Windows can utilize any hardware - whether you have an Nvidia or ATI card, an Intel or AMD processor, etc....it doesn't matter.

Can the same be said of OSX? No.

While new Windows releases have required increasingly more powerful hardware, new versions of OSX breath new life into old hardware.

My current system is 5 years old, and I can run Windows 7 on it.

Snow Leopard won't run on systems 3 years old, since it doesn't support Power PC processors. If invested in a Power PC system 3 years ago and it was already unable to use an upgraded OS, I'd be pretty pissed.

You snap at anyone who might make an error pertaining to the Mac, yet your arguments routinely contain false and/or statements.

 

[syn]

Look. For some people, BMWs are worth it. However, you can't deny that the premium is largely a matter of the badge on the front. A 3 series doesn't cost twice as much to produce as a Ford Fusion. It's a better car, to be sure. Is it 100% better? I'm skeptical.

Macs, perhaps, are better. Is the premium in price all due to higher standards of production? Of course not. Much of the premium is brand premium. If you made OSX look like a frumpy install of XP and ran it on the same hardware mounted in a Toshiba Satellite chassis, would it be worth as much, despite essentially being the same computer?

You're correct. That's one of the primary benefits of a well executed brand. People are willing to claim virtually everything Apple produces is "well designed", even though they make a number of questionable design decisions. Something that looks nice is not necessarily well designed.

No one thinks twice about it though because Apple markets their products on quality and design (and they just happen to look great, for the most part).

As for production quality, that's questionable. Is the IMac a better designed piece of hardware than comparable offerings from other companies? They use laptop parts in a desktop system, so I doubt it. The brand, however, commands a premium.

 

[wonderboy416]

Isn't the Mac Air notebook an example of an Apple product simply being flashy for the sake of doing so? Back to school $399 ACER notebooks from BestBuy offer way more functionality and don't require dongle after dongle to attach things like ... oh say a DVD drive or VGA/DVI/HDMI connection... Sure it's really thin, but it has a giant footprint, huge pricetag and even less functionality than your standard netbook PC or budget notebook.

It's the only MAC product I've had any extensive use with (a roommate of mine has one), IMO it's a peice of garbage.

I'm sure their regular line of Macbooks are excellent though.

 

[Anth]

A 3 series doesn't cost twice as much to produce as a Ford Fusion. It's a better car, to be sure. Is it 100% better? I'm skeptical.

I'm saying it's 100% better to the people who prefer it and you can only buy BMWs from BMW. If OS X looked and behaved like a frumpy install of Windows XP even with its superior engineering under the hood, you're absolutely right that it will have lost much of its appeal.

When I say Macs are well-designed, I'm referring to the whole package. The combination of industrial design sensibility, user interface polish, workflow simplicity, low maintenance operation, hardware/software cohesiveness, and under-the-hood software engineering is what makes the premium worth it to me and others who enjoy and value those things.

There's nothing wrong with a practical Windows machine in the same way there's nothing wrong with a practical Ford. For many people, in fact, they're often the better choices depending on one's preferences and priorities.

But sometimes you want something really nice as opposed to something that just works.