I want to hear which you think is better, real reasons please. Not just, well I think Mac is stupid and for hipsters..or Aw PCs are for poor people..or crap like that. Thank you :)

Views: 1021

Replies to This Discussion

Where is the Apple computer for people with average needs? You know, the person who receives and answers email, does Facebooking, logs into and participates in TA, watches Youtube videos, and plays DVD's? 

Why can't/won't they make a laptop even at the $500 price point and let dealers do price competition? 

I have some personal knowledge (not anecdotal knowledge, but professional knowledge) that Apple computers aren't particularly better built than HP, Dell, Gateway, ASUS, Lenovo, and other competing products. They show up DOA, fail after short periods of use, and develop other problems pretty much just as frequently as Windows laptops.

I don't understand where you are going with either of these points. Do some people pay for hardware they don't need? Yes. Should Apple address a lower price point market? Apparently they don't need to. Do they have manufacturing defects and recalls? Yes, of course. It sucks, but it seems to be a given these days with electronics.

None of this was being contested or even discussed in this tangent, so I am not sure why your points in a number of cases are posed as questions (seemingly directly toward me). My contention was merely that while Apple does not offer the best value on a number of components, the case for overpricing is, at times overstated and based on an inappropriately limited number of considerations. 

It says something about who they (Apple corporate) are that this is the market they want to take advantage of. To me, that's a "real reason" in terms of Mac vs PC.

They provide a variety of hardware with certain specs and features which appeal to certain demographics. Other companies do a much better job of appealing to certain other demographics. No company is obligated to try to fill every niche.

If you want to get on about ethics of the companies, I certainly hope you did your homework as there is a sea of fucking atrocities in this industry deeper than marketing hype.

I have no doubt.

They are comparable in terms of running the usual apps for a normal user. I've no doubt that while there are many who have good reasons for paying $2200 for a laptop, they are not your run-of-the-mill users.

I hereby throw my hat into the ring in terms of the value proposition.

Consider the hardware. The processing power, memory, and storage contained in a laptop costs more than the equivalent power in contained a desktop (no matter who makes it). It must be smaller, lighter, and more energy efficient. Portability, in other words, costs dearly. (It doesn't always have to cost YOU dearly as a user, but there are ways around that.)

Now consider the software. Virtually all (but not quite all) of the software you'll ever need, from operating system to applications, is now available free of charge. Office Productivity. Video Editing. 3D animation. CAD. Tens of thousands of applications; installable with one click.

As such, the value proposition in paying for software seems rather like paying to have bottled water and bottled air flown in by courier jet when one lives in a remote network of sparkling river valleys in Alaska. At least it does to me as a private computer user.

The system below is what I use at home. It would cost $2,820 if ordered fully assembled in today's dollars, a price which includes the cost of 4 monitors, 3 of which are 1080HD flat panels. The software didn't cost a dime, so every penny went into the cost of the hardware.

Now go to the Apple store and put together a Mac Pro. You're at $3,474.00 with a slower processor, half the RAM, one fewer graphics card, and no monitor. And that's before you've dropped another $300 on Final Cut Pro. Not that the rest of this is Apple's fault, but then you're looking at another $600 on Photoshop, another $700 on Flash, another $400 on Dreamweaver, another $100 for MS Office for Mac, plus whatever other software you're going to pay for. Sheesh.

But with Linux the cost of software is fixed at $0. Want an OS? $0. Want to switch to a different OS? $0. Need some software? $0. Need an upgrade? $0. New version of the OS just came out? $0. (But even if you really do want to pay for some software, you even have that option too.)

Now that's a proposition to really like. There are other things to like about Linux, but being rather fond of money, this one is my favorite.

$2,820.00
Quad-Core Intel i7-3820 3.60GHz w/10MB Cache
Intel LGA2011 Motherboard / DX79TO ATX-X79 E Chipset /1xGB Ethernet
64 GB DDR3 RAM (8 x Crucial 8GB PC3-12800 1600MHz DDR3)
2 x PNY NVIDIA GeForce GT610 1GB DDR3 (1xDVI,1xHDMI,1xVGA)
Seagate Barracuda HD 1.0TB SATA 6.0Gbps 7200RPM 3.5"- 5.25" Bay
Samsung 24x DVD+/-RW Dual Layer (SATA)
Corsair HX650 - 650W Modular Power Supply
Antec P183 V3 ATX Mid Tower w/Thinkmate 700/500RPM Case Fan

Monitors
1 X 27" LED-Backlit LCD - 1920x1080 - ASUS VE278H (VGA, HDMIx2)
2 X 22" LED-Backlit LCD - 1920x1080 - ASUS VE228H (VGA, DVI, HDMI)
1 X 19" LED-Backlit LCD - 1440x900 - ASUS VW199T-P (VGA, DVI)

Logitech Keyboard K120 (USB)
Cyber Acoustics 2pc Speaker System
UBUNTU LINUX Operating System

(Note: The fifth monitor below is connected to TV card.)

Not that the rest of this is Apple's fault, but then you're looking at another $600 on Photoshop, another $700 on Flash, another $400 on Dreamweaver, another $100 for MS Office for Mac, plus whatever other software you're going to pay for. Sheesh.

These application suites are, at their core, designed for professional use, so I always find it odd that people point out the cost. Now, Adobe is doing pretty damn well, so they could afford to lower their prices and still remain quite lucrative, but all told, Photoshop represents a fraction of one percent of the income I make using the software and there are no free equivalents. Alternatives? Yes. Equivalents? No. Why? Likely because of the money Adobe invests in development and in acquisition of solutions not developed in-house.

If you don't have professional level requirements from what these applications offer -- and not even all professionals in relevant fields require them --, there are free alternatives to a number of the applications* above as well as cheap alternatives with different functionality, as well as expensive alternatives with different functionality for Linux, OSX, and Windows. I mean, why would I put MS Office on my machine unless it was absolutely necessary? That's gross.

*Flash may be the notable exception for OSX (but not for Windows). Dreamweaver... I'm not sure, but does anyone really need Dreamweaver? Then again, I can run a virtual OS if I feel the need, so I am not strictly limited here anyway.

These application suites are, at their core, designed for professional use, so I always find it odd that people point out the cost.

What's so odd about pointing out costs, whether as a professional, a consumer, or a business?  Professions exist for profit. Businesses exist for profit. Maximize incomes; minimize costs.

Now, Adobe is doing pretty damn well, so they could afford to lower their prices and still remain quite lucrative, but all told, Photoshop represents a fraction of one percent of the income I make using the software and there are no free equivalents. Alternatives? Yes. Equivalents? No.

If an alternative can get the job done without being an equivalent then what difference does it make? My ex-girlfriend was a freelance photographer and picture editor for the Boston Globe and Harvard University. She started using GIMP at my place rather than leave (heh) and go back to her place to use Photoshop on the Mac at her apartment. It took some time to learn her way around but ultimately there was nothing she needed to do in Photoshop that she couldn't do on GIMP. Her Mac cost her over $2500 plus the software and my Linux box at the time was cobbled together from junk I bought at tag sales and eBay.

GIMP may not replace Photoshop in every situation (and I said as much originally) but if finding out doesn't cost a dime, then why not find out?

Why? Likely because of the money Adobe invests in development and in acquisition of solutions not developed in-house.

According to their annual report, Adobe was sitting on a gigantic pile of money last year: $4.3 billion, most of which was cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments. They spent $738 million on development, nothing on acquisitions, and $1.3 billion on sales and marketing.

They're not taking your money and using it to build or acquire a better Photoshop product. They're taking your money and using it to convince you it's a good idea to keep giving them your money. At least, that's the way it was in 2012.

If you don't have professional level requirements from what these applications offer -- and not even all professionals in relevant fields require them --, there are free alternatives to a number of the applications* above as well as cheap alternatives with different functionality, as well as expensive alternatives with different functionality for Linux, OSX, and Windows. I mean, why would I put MS Office on my machine unless it was absolutely necessary? That's gross.

If we're looking at a Mac as platform to run primarily one must-have application, then it makes even less financial sense to buy one.

Let's continue to use Photoshop as an example. Absolutely gotta have it? No problem.

Instead of a high-end Mac Pro desktop, buy a more powerful Linux PC. Then buy Windows, install that under Linux, then buy Photoshop and install that on Windows. Done.

Now take the thousands of dollars you just saved buy not buying that Mac and spend them on a nice vacation to the Galapagos Islands. Or maybe go on a pilgrimage to see Steve Jobs' luxury yacht.

What's so odd about pointing out costs, whether as a professional, a consumer, or a business?  Professions exist for profit. Businesses exist for profit. Maximize incomes; minimize costs.

Well, no they exist to provide a service, and profit is a requirement of providing a service. That said, the expectation for professional services is a cost of some sort as opposed to 'free'.

They're not taking your money and using it to build or acquire a better Photoshop product. They're taking your money and using it to convince you it's a good idea to keep giving them your money. At least, that's the way it was in 2012.

They are doing both. I am not arguing whether their business model is optimal (or even good) or not from a consumer perspective -- I already stated that they don't need to charge that much to remain lucrative --, just that charging for their product in and of itself isn't a bad thing.

GIMP may not replace Photoshop in every situation (and I said as much originally) but if finding out doesn't cost a dime, then why not find out?

I have never offered an opinion to the contrary. I have suggested GimpShop specifically to others for that reason.

Now take the thousands of dollars you just saved buy not buying that Mac and spend them on a nice vacation to the Galapagos Islands.

Given the option between jerking off with my left hand or my right, I'd rather... I mean I'd rather use OSX over Windows, and I am still taking that Galápagos vacation in October this year.  

What will I buy next? I am not certain, but the one area it seems most people skimp and save money is on the monitor. At the time I bought my last machine, the default Apple display was quite good for performance/ cost considering my needs, and the supporting hardware was more than sufficient considering I could buy additional memory quite cheaply.  I have 16GB, but really only need 12 99% of the time. If I could spring for a higher grade display, I would, but the higher end monitors were exceeding the cost of my entire computer at the time, and likely still would be today. Buying the Mac external display for a different setup wasn't really saving me much money overall.

I will always go with the monitor which provides the best advantages for image editing in my price range for my primary display. My secondary is cheap (handles menus and palettes like a champ, I guess), and I have no use for a tertiary. Given the difference of maybe a hundred to two hundred dollars for a machine which meets my needs, I will opt for no tower over tower. Space is tight and, odd as it sounds, my desktop needs some degree of mobility.

I am a niche user. I understand my niche. I pick an option which suites my niche. Everyone should do the same whether they are niche or not.

niche
niche
niche

This word is ruined for me now.

A lot of people without much in the way of means could probably compete with or even surpass the results professionals get, if they could only afford the software.

In theory, certainly. In practice, there would need to be more limiting factors than that. The major aspects which in which PS provides an edge are in productivity and compensating for extremes. There are other ways to get results.

Some people are going to be shit out of luck where life circumstances are concerned, but most of us don't really start with much in the way of means that I am aware of. I sure as hell didn't.

Honestly, this is a personal decision. I use PC because the interface is better for me. I like to be able to customize things on my computer (like I can have little gadgets on my home screen like a time and weather app that always displays the time and weather). Apple products in general are very rigid in their interface, so it is difficult to customize your device, there are just less options which is good for some. I like my iPhone and my iPad because they are really good devices (they have great virus protection and good battery life). I do like the android App Store a little better, but that is getting off topic. Macs are great if you have very basic computer needs (send an e-mail now and again, go online, type a document/spread sheet, edit videos) but not so good if you want to be programming software, have more customizing options, and (in my opinion) a much better interface. Macs tend to be a little more expensive, so if you want cost effective go with a cheap windows laptop rather than a really expensive mac. In general I do find macs have better anti-virus software. If you really want something great get a mac and download windows 7 on it.

RSS

Discussion Forum

Mac Vs PC

Started by Autumn Morales. Last reply by kris feenstra Apr 6, 2013. 94 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service