Anyone Else Tired

[TheStu]

You know, when I bought my Mac about a year ago, I was about to enter my first year of Software Engineering at college. I had to buy a laptop as it was one of the requirements for the course, so i went about hunting for one.

I knew that I wanted a smaller screen, most 15" machines that I had seen were fairly thick and heavy and I wanted portability. After all, I had a desktop that could handle all my 'serious' work, so I didnt need a huge screen, or tons of hard drive space. So I started looking in the 12-14" range, since although I knew that would be a little more expensive, I was willing to pay it for portability. Since I was to be studying SE, I knew that coding was going to be involved, I just didn't know what platform it was going to be on, so I figured that I might have to install Linux alongside Windows at some point. It was right around then that I started to consider the MacBook. I knew that it ran OS X, which I was a fan of the look of, if not a fan of the OS yet, and I also knew that one could run Windows and Linux on there, so if I really hated OS X, I could just run Windows.

At this time I was locked into the 'Macs are soooo much more expensive' mindset, so when I went to the website, i figured that it would be way out side my price range (About $1200) and furthermore, would not be as well equipped as other Windows machines. So I look at the MacBook, and then hop on NewEgg for some price comparisons. And I was given just about the biggest shock I have ever experienced when it comes to technology... the MacBook was the same price, heck, it was cheaper than most of them... especially considering what you got in it. The 1.83 Core Duo that the MacBook shipped with was the one with 4MB cache (total) which most of the ones being sold by Dell, and Toshiba and the rest had the 2MB cache chips. Which, I know is a small thing, but the fact that they were using the best processors, and still came out at the same price or cheaper really started to push me over the edge.

It was a combination of price, features, and looks that sold me on the MacBook, and I have never looked back (ok, I have looked back at the BlackBook... but that is about it). I very quickly fell in love with OS X, and how things that used to take 3-4 steps on Windows now only took 1-2, and was the exact same functionality as the Windows, just easier. I quickly found myself using my MacBook almost exclusively for anything that required even a moderate amount of power. My desktop was showing its age, had a 2.4GHz P4 Northwood, 1GB RAM, and a 6800LE... so it was still a great gaming machine, but I no longer had any other use for it. So I sold it, and used my MacBook solely from then on. The responsiveness of the OS, the speed of the machine, the attention to detail, and all the other little things, they just floored me.


When the new Santa Rosa MacBook Pros came out, I was seriously considering getting one since I wanted to start gaming again, and still wanted to have a Mac since in my opinion, Windows could not handle what I wanted to do efficiently. However, since I am nerd, and I still had that lingering 'Macs are sooo much more expensive' thing in my head, I price matched it. Or tried to. No one else seemed to have the Santa Rosa for sale, and if they did, they didn't have the 8600M GT... or really any 8 Series card for that matter. They didn't have backlit screens, or backlit keyboards, all aluminum shells, or OS X. And once I finally could find a Windows machine that could match the MacBook Pro, it was about $300 more expensive... so much for Macs being more expensive.


The most grating part, to me at least, part of the dissenters arguments is that they always lead off with something like "I could get 2 (insert random computer here) for the price of 1 MacBook Pro" and they can never back it up. Sure they can get 3 $600 Dell Inspirons for the price of 1 MacBook Pro... but the Inspirons have 1.5GHz processors, lower res, and intel integrated graphics... so how is that even? They never give a fair comparison because if they ever were to do so, they would find that if the Mac is more expensive, it is only by about $200-300 more, and that is fairly close when you are talking about a $2000 machine.



Sorry to rant and tell stories, but does anyone else have any gripes about really anything that non-mac Users have, or even you might have about the Mac.

 

[bearxor]

Yes, it's an extremely old and outdated argument. You might could apply it to the iMac if you're talking about only the internals, but for the hardware you get, the MacBook, MBP and MacPro are excellently priced. That's not even taking in to consideration the software that you get with a Mac.

I don't think they're too expensive but the MBP is firmly out of my price range. I usually spend less than $1000 on a laptop every couple of years. I was lucky enough to get in on the last bit of a offer website which netted me my MBP for about $120 and four months of patience. In the future I'll definitely buy the MBP though. I did the same thing you did when SR hit, priced everyone and no one could touch the specs on the MBP for the price. It seems Intel is giving Apple a very good deal on these processors.

 

[randomlinh]

there is still a premium to be paid. but it's worth it IMO. I just can't afford it exactly The iMac is probably my only gripe, but it's targeted at the traditional non-technical person. Being the opposite of that, it's a little frustrating to have one.. but I couldn't justify a macbook pro (or mac pro). This is where I think a lot of the bad mouthing of the iMac comes from... it's all from technical people.. whom the iMac is definitely not geared towards.

Sucks for business though... because a mac pro is ridiculously overpowered for some, and the whole screen issue w/ the imac hurts it for the graphics people who don't need the powerhouse of a mac pro.

But back to the premium paid... for the vast majority of people, the bottom line is the dollar, no matter what. And it's probably why Apple hasn't really wanted to jump into a mainstream desktop yet.

 

[msparish]

Part of the problem is that Apple doesn't give you options. If you want a MBP, you are forced to pay for extra features that you may not need (such as dedicated graphics). For example, if you don't need integrated graphics, you can get an HP with the same specs (the HP has a lower screen resolution) for less than 1k. Granted, the HP is somewhat thicker, doesn't have as nice of a case, etc. But to most people, that stuff isn't worth it for twice the price.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: bearxor I usually spend less than $1000 on a laptop every couple of years.

Same ballpark here. I just got an Acer laptop for $700 Canadian; it's a single core that's why it's so cheap. Mac has no cheap single core computer. If I wanted a Dell with the same features as a Macbook, it would be about $300 cheaper than the Macbook (1200 instead of 1500 for that particular model). Up in the Macbook Pro range, Macs are actually cheaper than Dells. Unfortunately that's out of my price range.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: bearxor I usually spend less than $1000 on a laptop every couple of years.

Same ballpark here. I just got an Acer laptop for $700 Canadian; it's a single core that's why it's so cheap. Mac has no cheap single core computer. If I wanted a Dell with the same features as a Macbook, it would be about $300 cheaper than the Macbook (1200 instead of 1500 for that particular model). Up in the Macbook Pro range, Macs are actually cheaper than Dells. Unfortunately that's out of my price range.

We must be looking at different dell websites. I'm trying to compare a 13" macbook with a 13" Dell. The Dell is above 2300$ without the software!

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: bearxor I usually spend less than $1000 on a laptop every couple of years.

Same ballpark here. I just got an Acer laptop for $700 Canadian; it's a single core that's why it's so cheap. Mac has no cheap single core computer. If I wanted a Dell with the same features as a Macbook, it would be about $300 cheaper than the Macbook (1200 instead of 1500 for that particular model). Up in the Macbook Pro range, Macs are actually cheaper than Dells. Unfortunately that's out of my price range.

We must be looking at different dell websites. I'm trying to compare a 13" macbook with a 13" Dell. The Dell is above 2300$ without the software!

Probably looking at the same sites, but if getting a 14.1 inch screen instead of 13 inch screen saves me $1000, so be it. Look at 3 different price ranges of laptops and see how a Dell compares to a Mac.

Budget (looking at these in Canadian dollars)

Apple
cheapest macbook is $1250 Canadian, so I think that means Apple doesn't have any budget models.

Dell Inspiron 1501
Athlon X2 TK-53 (this is the slowest processor on their website)
Vista Home Basic
15.4 inch screen
2gb ram
80gb hard drive
Radeon Xpress 1150
DVD burner
price: $639 plus shipping


Midrange

MacBook
2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo
integrated webcam
13 inch screen
2gb ram
120gb hard drive
video card not listed
DVD writer
bluetooth
price: $1,504 plus shipping

Dell Inspiron 1420
2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo
Vista Home Premium
integrated webcam
14.1 inch screen
2gb ram
120gb hard drive (smallest available for this model)
GeForce Go 8400 (never buy integrated video)
DVD writer
bluetooth
price: $1,199 plus shipping


The expensive ones are very hard to compare because the expensive Apple computers are 15 inch while the expensive Dell computers are 17. If you want to compare 15 inch models, the "midrange" Inspiron 1420 is the same as the cheapest MacBook Pro except it has a slower 2.0Ghz instead of 2.2Ghz processor. The 15 inch Dell is $1,199 while the 15 inch MacBook Pro with mostly the same specs is $2,199 ($1,000 more for a 0.2Ghz speed increase?). When comparing 17 inch models, Dell's fastest computer is nowhere near as poweful as the fastest MacBook Pro.


Anyway, my point is that the budget computer I wanted can only be purchased as a PC. If I want a more powerful midrange computer, the Dell is cheaper than the Mac. If I wanted to go all out and get the fastest thing available, Apple is where it's at.

 

[kalster]

i really want apple to come out with a 12" macbook, the 13.3 is a big and heavy for my taste, the old 12" g4's were pretty nice form factor wise, i use a thinkpad x series now and that form factor is perfect IMO, mobile yet powerful and a fantastic keyboard

 

[MovingTarget]

I'm pretty tired of it myself, but it isn't like I don't see where these arguments come from. Both my sister and I got laptops around the same time, myself an iBook G4 and her a Gateway something. She got a bigger screen, bigger hard drive, faster processor (although you could debate x86 vs RISC architecture here), same amount of ram, etc. Well, two years on, mine is the only one that still works despite much, much heavier useage. I have a desktop for gaming, but since I've gotten into a lot more programming/modeling for graduate school (mathematics), I've found it to be even more useful.

Here's a hypothetical: Suppose I needed to get a new computer within a few weeks. Now, being a student I am what you would call "broke". Yes, I need a computer for many things but price is the overriding factor in what I could purchase. In this case, the $300 dell wins everytime. Cost is prohibitive, kind of like getting a Wii instead of a PS3 if you are a gamer (and were apathetic about the controller/interface). Even though I prefer the Wii, it can easily be seen that the console itself isn't what has driven a lot of the numbers there...price is definitely a factor.

If it were up to what features it has, an apple would be the easiest choice. The mac mini I believe was a step in the right direction towards an untapped market of pc users, but it isn't enough. What is needed is a low-cost tower that could compete with the likes of dell/gateway and the like. Also, something that could be more easily upgraded than the mini or imac would be preferrable. The mac pro provides this physical flexibility, but you have to be pretty well off to afford one. Apple could easily shoot for the lower end and satisfy a lot of people, especially since Vista is causing a lot of headaches on lower-end machines. They just don't seem to be capitalizing on it.

Long story short, macs are definitely worth it but sometimes it isn't enough... They are catching up though.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

I never get tired of it.

Why? Because you can find competitors for Macbook pros at two thirds or less in price. If you bother to look. The best route to do this is to buy the previous model of anything out. Case in point, I have a very very nice Toshiba laptop, C2D @ 2ghz, 2gb ram, 7600gt - 256mb, 200gb drive, duallayer dvd burner, HK-sound, and it was 1099.

I can't even touch a refurb macbook for that.


The key is that you never get a good deal on a Mac through Apple. So don't try. EBAY works wonders... once in a blue moon the refurb site is OK too. The thing is you can find laptops that do everything you need for a lot less but people will justify any expense, no matter how irrational the reasons are to outside viewers.

There are many as powerful as a MacBook pro laptops for sale everyday, just read your local BB,OD, or OM circular to see them.

As far as longeivity. The majority of that is the user. I have a 6 year old Dell that I gave to a friend-its still going. 8 year old MicronPC laptop, actually its probably older than that... my sister used it for awhile and she recently found it in storage - it still works.


My current PCs are...
Home build AMD system (mini-tower), iMac 24, Toshiba laptop.

I use the iMac the most, the Toshiba when I want to be outside or on the road, the AMD system is the "upstairs" computer - mostly stores stuff and plays DVDs for when I am exercising.


why the iMac the most? the screen.

 

[IEC]

What's even better is if you get in on sales for discontinued/"obsolete" models:

Got a Acer with following specs for *only* $299 OTD:
2.0GHz Turion 64 (single core)
1GB DDR2-533 RAM
100GB HDD
16x DVD+-RW dual-layer
15.4" widescreen LCD
802.11b/g wireless
Vista Home Premium
Radeon X1100 integrated

My sis ain't complaining because it's a solid laptop (especially after I modified cooling) that should last a while. Battery life is only 2-2.5 hours but who cares? It's going to mostly stay in the dorm room. I made sure to stress the hell out of it to make sure it was durable - after mods load temp on a hot day never exceeded 42C while gaming for hours. Since she doesn't game, it's more than enough power. Cheap laptop deals abound, so if you're a college student on a shoestring budget price matters.

 

[Stark]

the last PC I built was a P4 3.0GHz PrescHot running XP MCE in a SFF case. It was the worst experience I've ever had building a system (out of 10 or so good builds over the years). I paid more for that maddening piece of crap than I did for a new 2.4GHz 24" iMac last month.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

OSX > Xp/Vista. I'm willing to pay more to use it. XP can stay in a VM like it is right now.

 

[JDub02]

There's no doubt that Mac's are expensive .. quite expensive once you start going up the scale. But "too expensive" is relative.

For a laptop with a 17" screen, the MacBook Pro clocks in well over $2,000. I can get very similar hardware in an HP for around $1400. Big difference.

Is the Mac worth it? Maybe.

On the lower end .. Mac Mini's, iMac's, MacBooks .. they compete quite well.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
OSX > Xp/Vista. I'm willing to pay more to use it. XP can stay in a VM like it is right now.

I always find that amusing as I never had a single issue with XP. I have it on two machines and if anything its so stable as to not even be noticable.

 

[TheStu]

I never had any huge issues with XP either, it was stable (after I worked to make it so), ran what i wanted it to run, and fairly quick. It is just that now that I have used OS X almost exclusively for the past year I have found that I can do the same things, only better, faster, and easier. That is why OS X > XP/Vista in my opinion. Especially since Vista almost seemed to go out of its way to make things different from XP, just for the sake of making them different.

However, that is another topic for another day.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
OSX > Xp/Vista. I'm willing to pay more to use it. XP can stay in a VM like it is right now.

I always find that amusing as I never had a single issue with XP. I have it on two machines and if anything its so stable as to not even be noticable.

I never did either. Except that it's 5 years old and it gets slow over time. Every non tech savy person has problems with XP. Countless times I've seen their computer riddled with spyware/viruses, and malware.

Vista is ok, but not on a laptop.

 

[Tarrant64]

I've ranted on the whole price issues before, and I'm not against Apple in the matter.

Apple is not like any other competitor, so to expect them to price match everyone else out there is silly. You pay for the look, the change in OS(which is good, why use Windows for everything when you can change it up a little bit?), and other sleek features you get. Do many of those other laptops also come with built-in video camera and mic? I don't think they do.

What do you consider overpriced? The $100~$200 difference?


Shivetya:

Does your toshiba come with OS X? Can you run OS X/Windows on the same machine?
Do you have a built-in microphone? video camera? LED backlit screen? Do you like the snazy look of your Toshiba? Or is it OK that some people like the simple look of their Apple laptops?

The key is that you "do" get good deals on a Mac through Apple. I can't say that about the MacPro's though. I don't know WTF they are thinking with those prices.
Props on the iMac though. Good choice.


Moving Target:

I agree on that with the desktop lineup issues. I don't think other than big time video editors and designers, etc. that Apple has ever been a major competitor in the desktop market. It'd be nice if they were, but for now I think they are taking a first step with the mac mini. Now, if they'd only pump in a larger HD in those for still under $500, I'd pick it up in a heartbeat.


kalster:
thinkpad x = ~3.6 lbs
Powerbook 12"= ~4.6 lbs
Macbook = ~5.1 lbs

either way, anything you get from Apple is going to weigh just a little bit more.


Spartan Niner:
is that $299 laptop still covered under warranty? Do many people look for discountinued or obsolete models? I know I wouldn't if I was looking for a laptop.


SoundTheSurrender:
Argument can go on and on about that. You pay for Vista. You pay for OS X. There's no reason to argue about what costs more.


JDub02:
Yup.

ShawnD1:
Yeah, Apple doesn't have a budget laptop model. But thinking about it, Apple hasn't really used whatever processors are out there that are cheaper. They chose a lineup, and for once a good one with Intel now, and they stick to it. You can also look at it as Apple won't settle for budget. It's all or nothin'.

Sometimes 14.1" is too big. I know a lot of students who can't fit that on their desk in the classroom. Apple is trying to squeeze the size down to a slimmer, efficient design at the lowest cost. I'd pay the extra $300 for that.


teclis1023:
Nope, you're looking at the right one.


TheStu:
Argument very well made. Thanks.


Just wanted to point these things out.

 

[teclis1023]

The only Apple product that I think is overpriced is the Mac Pro tower. There's no doubt it's an awesome system - well built, etc. etc. The only problem is that the Xeons utilize the same performance specs as the Core processors, so unless you want 8 cores, there's no need to go for Xeons.

If I had my way, Apple would offer two Mac Pro base models:

Mac Pro Quad-Core ~ $1999
Core2Quad Q6700
4GB DDR2-1066
500GB Hard Drive
Of course, it would be upgradeable, including up to the QX6850, 16GB RAM, 4 SATA HDDs, etc.)

Mac Pro Eight-Core ~ $3299
2 x Quad-Core Xeon 5355
4GB FB-DIMM DDR2-667
750GB Hard Drive


Anyways, just my dreams

 

[TheStu]

I think part of the Xeon issue is that some people get OS X server installed on the MacPro (or the old PowerMacs) and as such you would want the Xeon instruction sets (or whatever they are called) for that very reason. I do agree it would be nice if they offered a headless tower that was upgradeable (maybe a mini mac pro? one optical drive, 2 graphics cards instead of 4, still 4 hard drive bays, but maybe only 1 processor) but I fear that may never happen.

 

[Drakkon]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
The only Apple product that I think is overpriced is the Mac Pro tower. There's no doubt it's an awesome system - well built, etc. etc. The only problem is that the Xeons utilize the same performance specs as the Core processors, so unless you want 8 cores, there's no need to go for Xeons.

If I had my way, Apple would offer two Mac Pro base models:

Mac Pro Quad-Core ~ $1999
Core2Quad Q6700
4GB DDR2-1066
500GB Hard Drive
Of course, it would be upgradeable, including up to the QX6850, 16GB RAM, 4 SATA HDDs, etc.)

Mac Pro Eight-Core ~ $3299
2 x Quad-Core Xeon 5355
4GB FB-DIMM DDR2-667
750GB Hard Drive


Anyways, just my dreams

We just got 3 of the 8 cores here at work and i must say they are impressive (maxed out at 16GB of ram and close to 2TB of HD space - dept had wayyy too much money to spend) but when it comes to apps that can actually use all that power they are woefully inadiquate. We had all 3 running Maya rendering using mental ray a 420 frame movie and it took almost 24 hours. I switched it up and put two 2x3.0 Ghz Xeons running windows instead of the two macs and they did it in 8 hours. Something about the instruction set clearly isnt as up to snuff for some reason.

 

[TheStu]

So you would say that the problem lies with Maya or OS X, rather than the hardware.... i wonder if there would be anyway to conclusively determine which one it is.

 

[DimZiE]

mac's are worth it..but replacement parts are soo expensive

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: TheStu
I think part of the Xeon issue is that some people get OS X server installed on the MacPro (or the old PowerMacs) and as such you would want the Xeon instruction sets (or whatever they are called) for that very reason. I do agree it would be nice if they offered a headless tower that was upgradeable (maybe a mini mac pro? one optical drive, 2 graphics cards instead of 4, still 4 hard drive bays, but maybe only 1 processor) but I fear that may never happen.

That's a good point - I had forgotten about the server aspect.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
We just got 3 of the 8 cores here at work and i must say they are impressive (maxed out at 16GB of ram and close to 2TB of HD space - dept had wayyy too much money to spend) but when it comes to apps that can actually use all that power they are woefully inadiquate. We had all 3 running Maya rendering using mental ray a 420 frame movie and it took almost 24 hours. I switched it up and put two 2x3.0 Ghz Xeons running windows instead of the two macs and they did it in 8 hours. Something about the instruction set clearly isnt as up to snuff for some reason.

There's only one solution...more Mac Pros!