Mac users' elitism

Jet said:
Here is an interesting guide for everyone.

http://www.xvsxp.com/finalscore/

I'm not saying it's right but naturally I agree with it's findings. :D
Click to expand...
An excellent round-up, I must say, and I too am pleased with the results :p

I'm rather disappointed that whoever put that together didn't class the iLife suite of applications as a feature of OS X, though. iLife is distributed with all new macs nowadays, and it is no less a part of the operating system as applications such as Windows Movie Maker are, in my opinion.

If included in the round-up, iMovie HD would wipe the floor with Windows Movie Maker, and iPhoto would walk all over Windows' offerings in the Photos section :)
 
To get a mac any faster than my PC I had to spend $3600 on the US site (with a 20 inch screen). Admittedly it was quad core but it was also 800mhz slower than mine. For one similar speed but with worse graphics and a 20 inch screen it was over $2000, my PC has cost me about £1100 with a 26inch screen.

To try and get a fair comparison I am going to spec a PC and Mac to the same speed and see which offers better value, keep in mind it is the hardware and cost I don't like not the software.

The Apple UK site is currently down so I will spec the PC on a US site.

PC with the same spec (2.66ghz quad core, x1900xt, 500gb HD, Samsung 20 inch WS, all high quality parts etc.) came to $2400~ whereas the Mac was $4000. They just don't offer good value for money and are hard to upgrade. Factor in the capability the PC has to overclock if you feel like it it you can get something faster for 60% of the cost.
 
Al Vallario said:
What on earth has that got to do with my post? :confused:
Click to expand...

Quite a lot really, say you buy the latest and greatest hardware, you still have to go and buy a mac to use osx.


brand new rig, choices of os:

Windows XP Home Retail: £175
Mac OS X Retail: £80 + a new mac.
 
Jet said:
Don't know why you don't understand :confused:
Click to expand...
Is that a joke?

Jet said:
You said that it was ok for Microsoft to charge more because more programs and games run on it. What has this got to do with Microsoft? The third parties decide whether to build a program/game for Windows. Why should Microsoft charge more because GTA is only available on Windows. What has that got to do with Microsoft?
Click to expand...
Everything. Supply and demand. It's the foundation of our civilisation. Windows is demanded more so Microsoft can raise the price.

Jet said:
OSX has more value because you get more stuff with it. You can't charge more because of what third parties do with their time.
Click to expand...
Eh? "It has more value"? I'm sorry if this comes as a shock to you but 90% of the world will disagree with you. Just because OSX has more built in features (or as they get called in Windows, "bloat") doesn't mean it automatically has higher value. Yes it helps, but no matter what Apple adds to its OS they will probably never make up for the gigantic shortfall in its third party ecosystem. The only way it can do that is by investing in good developer tools. Much like the billions Microsoft has invested in the .NET platform since 1999.

Jet said:
Apple charge more for iPods because they can. Apple charge more for iPods because everyone wants one and they look good.
Click to expand...
(Ignoring the very simplistic way of presenting it) So now you're agreeing with me on this very fundamental concept? If so, why didn't you agree when Windows was the topic?

Jet said:
Microsoft is similar. They charge a lot because they know people will have to buy it.
Click to expand...
How is that similar to the previous statement? I ask because here you are implying the monopolistic undertones of Microsoft.

But yes you are correct (in stark contrast to your prior statements) - Windows costs more because it is in higher demand. If somebody needs to run some software that is only available on Windows then they will need to buy a Windows PC. Apple iPod's are nothing like a monopoly so that comparison is pointless.

It seems you are a bit confused in that you are treating the pricing strategy of Windows differently to how you treat everything else.

I apologise for disecting your post.
 
Last edited:
Chronos-X said:
Whats always amused me is the thought that programs that coexist on both main platforms are somehow better on a mac.
Click to expand...

It's true for SOME but typically it's software Apple makes. iTunes performance on windows vs mac is a good example :) Mine takes 12 secs to load up with a library of 928 (currently, rebuilding to 2700 which takes 20secs) with 2Gb ram and AMD 3800+ :P Coverflow is as smooth as silk though.
 
Al Vallario said:
It can fit to the size of the screen (with all the controls visible and space to the top or bottom if the aspect ratio is not correct), but not full screen.
Click to expand...

oh lol! I've always had Quicktime pro for the last 4 years :D
 
NathanE said:
Is that a joke?

Everything. Supply and demand. It's the foundation of our civilisation. Windows is demanded more so Microsoft can raise the price.

Eh? "It has more value"? I'm sorry if this comes as a shock to you but 90% of the world will disagree with you. Just because OSX has more built in features (or as they get called in Windows, "bloat") doesn't mean it automatically has higher value. Yes it helps, but no matter what Apple adds to its OS they will probably never make up for the gigantic shortfall in its third party ecosystem. The only way it can do that is by investing in good developer tools. Much like the billions Microsoft has invested in the .NET platform since 1999.

(Ignoring the very simplistic way of presenting it) So now you're agreeing with me on this very fundamental concept? If so, why didn't you agree when Windows was the topic?

How is that similar to the previous statement? I ask because here you are implying the monopolistic undertones of Microsoft.

But yes you are correct (in stark contrast to your prior statements) - Windows costs more because it is in higher demand. If somebody needs to run some software that is only available on Windows then they will need to buy a Windows PC. Apple iPod's are nothing like a monopoly so that comparison is pointless.

It seems you are a bit confused in that you are treating the pricing strategy of Windows differently to how you treat everything else.

I apologise for disecting your post.
Click to expand...

What has supply and demand got to do with value for money? Nothing in these circumstances.

All i'm talking about is value for money. OSX is better value for money when compared with Windows, imo. Hence the link I pointed to proves (to an extent).

E.g. a Kia saloon may be more value for money than a BMW 3 series but BMW still charges more. Demand doesn't always come from value for money.

I don't believe third parties develop for Microsoft because of its brilliant development tools. They do it because they can reach more customers and I don't think it's good value for Microsoft to increase the price because of this.

Microsoft should charge what it costs to develop the product, not what other companies do afterwards.

Take an action man (lol) as an example. Would you think it was good value for money if the manufacturers increased the price because some other company made some great accessories? I wouldn't. I would rather pay for the cost of the product only.

As I said before Windows is priced in a similar way to iPods. iPods are priced high because of their demand. The cost to make them is a lot less. Same with Windows imo. Therefore iPods aren't great value for money because you pay a premium for the look. Windows isn't great value because you pay for Microsofts monopoly of the market and everyone thinks they need it. Not because its good value for money with loads of great features. Unlike OSX.

It seems you think demand is linked to value for money which is sometimes the case but not when comparing OSX and Windows.
 
Last edited:
Raikiri said:
PC with the same spec (2.66ghz quad core, x1900xt, 500gb HD, Samsung 20 inch WS, all high quality parts etc.) came to $2400~ whereas the Mac was $4000. They just don't offer good value for money and are hard to upgrade. Factor in the capability the PC has to overclock if you feel like it it you can get something faster for 60% of the cost.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to tell me that there is a system available in the states which comprises:

- 2x 2.66GHz Dual Core Intel Xeon processors
- 2GB 667MHz ECC RAM
- 500GB HDD space
- 512MB ATi Radeon X1900 XT graphics card
- 20" Widescreen LCD

for $2400 (£1230)?

Well I sure as hell want some of that! Either the system or the stuff you're smoking...

Edit: The 2.66GHz Dual Core "Woodcrest" processor retails for $689 in the states, so that leaves $1000 for all of the remaining components? $300 of that will be the Samsung 20" widescreen, so you're left with $700 (~£350) to buy a high-end dual processor motherboard, 2GB ECC RAM, the graphics card, case, power supply?
 
Last edited:
I said Quad core, not 2x Dual Core Xeon but performance will be very similar (having a look around, alomst exactly the same as 2 x Xeon 5150).
Why would you have ECC ram when it isn't needed, and non ECC is faster in most cases. If they were benchmarked against eachother you would not be able to tell the difference.

I said you could get the same performance for much less not the same parts, it isn't my fault Apple choose to use overly expensive parts that offer no advantage ;)
 
Last edited:
Raikiri said:
I said you could get the same performance for much less not the same parts, it isn't my fault Apple choose to use overly expensive parts that offer no advantage ;)
Click to expand...
Well sure, whatever.

Wait to go proving Apple hardware is overpriced by comparing it to totally different, less expensive hardware :rolleyes:
 
No, I am saying they are poor value for money, not overpriced :rolleyes:
They are the right price for what they are, but what they are isn't good value.


There is a distinct difference between the two, why pay so much more when you can get the same performance (and quality) for less?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom