Hunter:
Perhaps a comment is called for???
BTW, I should have pointed at the Apple web site. They also have a cost comparison of the low end Titanium against a Sony Vaio Z505.
Of course, they were a little less careful about comparable features than I was, but I think that’s their point…
BIOS stands for Basic Input/Output System. It a chip on your motherboard that helps control data traffic between whatever devices you have connected (hard drive, monitor, Zip drive, scanner, joystick, mouse, printer, etc.) and the CPU. It is not part of DOS, which is software not hardware, although you could say that DOS was designed around the limitiations of the BIOS chips in use at the time.
Hey, Joey… try comparing DESKTOPS. Y’know, the majority of computers in the country?
These disingenious “proofs” are silly.
Hey - I’d like to see someone take on Joey’s challenge. Laptop - Desktop - they’re both still computers, right? Hell, I am writing this from my LAPTOP right now! More and more people are using them.
Joey, I don’t know how you managed to find a laptop that expensive.
From Dell’s online store:
Pentium III 1GHz
15" SXGA+ TFT Display (1400x1050 resolution)
512MB
32MB DDR 4X AGP NVIDIA GeForce2
32 GB ATA Hard Drive
Modular Floppy Drive
Internal 56K V.90 + 10/100 Mini-PCI Combo
CD-RW/DVD Internal Combo Drive
2 59 WHr Lithium Ion Batteries
2 USB ports
1 IEEE 1394
$3,999
So let’s see…the only thing I couldn’t meet was the 2 AC adapters (Why would you need an extra one?)
However, every other option I exceeded, and it has the SAME price as the Mac. 512 MB RAM vs. 384 MB RAM…8 MB ATI Mobility (HAHA!) vs. 32 MB DDR GeForce 2…DVD vs. DVD/CD-RW combo…I think you get the point.
Depending on power saving features activated and the usage of the machine, of course. I’m sure you get far lower performance levels to get this duration of use.
The only advantage that the Apple really has is it’s weight. The Dell weighs around 8 pounds with everything in it (DVD/CD-RW, Floppy, and Battery).
And seeing as I’ve already compared desktops earlier…the ball is now in your court, with your point debunked.
JoeyBlades:
Perhaps I wasn’t clear… the 8.3 filename is an internal detail that only comes into play when you boot into DOS. On NTFS there’s no 8.3 filename at all.
If a filename is short and meaningless, blame whoever wrote it. The OS can handle long filenames perfectly well.
Every disk has a unique serial number and volume label. You just don’t have to know them in order to use the disk.
Yes.
Well done Monster!
Since you exceeded the technical specs, I’ll ignore the fact that it doesn’t entirely meet the spirit of the challenge, i.e. (it’s not a slim-line notebook and it’s plastic instead of the cool, durable metal). More to the point, this laptop is 75% thicker, 90% larger (by volume), and weighs 50% more… not to mention the rated battery life is 40% shorter (oops, just mentioned it). I’m going to ignore all of that, because I think there’s a more important lesson to be learned from this exercise…
Based on the configuration you found and the configuration I found, I would infer that for similarly equipped, high end laptop/notebook computers, the Macintosh is about the same price or less than the average Wintel cost. While this doesn’t do anything to prove my point about having found Macs in the past that were competitively priced with Dell computers - it does a lot to dispel the “myth” that Macintosh computers are intrinsically more expensive than Wintel computers (at least in this domain).
But what of the desktop domain, as Mr2001 points out? Good question. I don’t know the answer, so let’s repeat the exercise for a desktop solution. Again, I’ll set the benchmark at the high end (my perogative as the challenged):
So I choose the Power Mac G4 desktop
733MHz G4 CPU
133MHz System Bus
512MB RAM (expandable to 1.5GB)
Viewsonic 19" monitor
GeForce2 MX graphics card (32MB)
60GB hard disk
5 PCI slots (one used by video card)
2 FireWire ports
2 USB2 ports
10/100/1000 Base-T (gigabit) ethernet
SuperDrive DVD-R/CD-RW (CD/DVD burner with CD & DVD authoring sw)
Apple Pro speakers (digital Harman Kardon)
Total system price from MacWarehouse: $3967
Now apple claims that the 733MHz G4 is up to 57% faster than a 1.5GHz Pentium 4… I’m not sure I believe that, but the comparable system should be at least a 1.5GHz P4.
I have not bothered to look yet, for a competing Wintel system, but I’ll see what you come up with. I really don’t know what to expect. My guess is that a comparable Wintel system will be in the same price range, but it could be lower…
Still not what you had in mind? I’m curious, myself, how a simple iMac would fair…
At MacWarehouse I see the basic iMac for $899
450MHz PowerPC G3
128MB SDRAM
10GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM
RAGE 128 Pro w/ 8MB
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K internal modem
15-inch display
Two USB ports
Two FireWire ports
MicroWarehouse has a Compaq Deskpro for $699
Pentium III 733MHz
64MB SDRAM
10GB disk
CD-ROM
Drive: 3.5” floppy, 1.44MB
Intel 3D Direct AGP, 4MB
10/100Mbps PCI NIC with WOL
2 USB
I have to add a USB floppy to the iMac (about $75) to bring it up to par, but I have to add a monitor, modem card, 64MB RAM, and 2 FireWire ports to the Compaq… And this still doesn’t account for the fact that the iMac has more graphics memory and a port to drive another monitor. I’m not going to price all of that, but I suspect that we are talking about more than $275 worth of difference here…
Can you find or build another configuration that meets or exceeds these specs? Yeah, I suspect you could, but that’s not the point. This PC price is comparable to what I see in adds for CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc., which is where, “Y’know, the majority of computers in the country” are bought…
Earlier, Monster asked:
Several reasons: (1) It was part of the Mac configuration (2) I’ve gotten two with my last three Dell laptops and (3) it’s damn useful. I leave one at home and one at work so that when I’m just going between the two locations, my case is about a pound lighter.
sturmhauke:
Thanks for the lesson on the BIOS…
I could and I did. Not just DOS but the entire file system… which is my point - it’s limited by the early versions of the BIOS architectural constraints.
SPOOFE:
Disingenious in what way? I made a claim (a valid claim that I can still backup, BTW). I was asked to demonstrate how this claim could be so. I showed one possible alternative. Monster showed a contray example. Maybe there are other ways of comparing. If you want to talk disingenious, then I think we have to consider the arbitrary claims by PC proponents that Macs (in general) are more expensive than PCs (in general).
Mr2001:
While NTFS is certainly capable of dealing with files that are not 8.3, in practice, these still litter my file system. I agree they are merely an artifact of the antiquated file systems that came before NTFS, however the bottom line is that they DO inject antiquated infrastructure into a modern file system.
Try this little experiment. Save a bunch of files to a Zip or floppy disk. Now manually eject that disk and replace it with another. Without asking Windows to do a refresh, try to open or move one of the files on the ejected media. Windows will unceremoniously tell you that there’s a file error. The MacOS will eject the current media and request you to reinsert the one with the file… much more user friendly. In fact, I can have dozens of disks that I swap in and out and the MacOS can keep track of them all.
Please let me know how to do this. I’d like to confirm it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JoeyBlades *
** Windows will unceremoniously tell you that there’s a file error. The MacOS will eject the current media and request you to reinsert the one with the file… much more user friendly. **
Gah! I have nothing more to say about this than this is the ONE Mac ‘feature’ that makes me throw things at the monitor. I cannot count the times that the media has left (for whatever reason) and that damn Mac keeps demanding I put it in. I don’t know how to get out of it except for rebooting the machine, which I invariably have to do.
Give me Abort/Retry/Fail any day of the week over this one…
Doh! In that iMac configuration, I left off the ink jet printer ($100 value), which narrows the gap even more.
Ok, this is going to be a rather long post…just a warning.
The performance PC systems I found come from Dell, Compaq, and Gateway:
Dell PC
P4 1.5 GHz
400 MHz FSB
512 MB PC800 RDRAM
60 GB UATA HDD (7200 RPM)
19" Trinitron Monitor
64 MB DDR GeForce 2 Ultra
16x DVD
8x4x32 CD-RW
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz DSP Sound Card
Altec Lansing THX Certified ADA885 Dolby Digital Speakers + Subwoofer
56K Modem
10/100 NIC
IEEE 1394 Card (Not sure how many ports, doesn’t say)
USB (Front and rear ports)
$3,807 (or $3,267 with 256 MB PC800 RDRAM)
Compaq PC
Athlon 1.33 GHz
266 MHz FSB
512 DDR SDRAM
75 GB UDMA HDD (7200 RPM)
DVD-R/CD-RW Combo Drive
19" Trinitron Monitor
THX Certified Klipsch ProMedia Speaker system
US Robotics 56k Modem
10/100 NIC
USB (Front and rear ports)
Sound Blaster Live! Value Sound Card
64 MB DDR GeForce 2 GTS
$3,545 (or $3,110 with 256 MB of DDR SDRAM)
Gateway PC
Athlon 1.3 GHz
133 FSB
256 MB SDRAM
75 GB UATA HDD (7200 RPM)
19" Diamondtron monitor
16x DVD + 12x8x32x CD-RW Combo Drive
Soundblaster Live! Value Sound Card
64 MB GeForce 2 Ultra
IEEE 1394
TV Tuner
USB
56K Modem
10/100 NIC
Boston Acoustics Dolby Digital Speakers + Subwoofer
$2,729
Now, the first two systems come close to the Apple system, but the reason for that is the 512 MB of high performance RAM. You can take $540 off the Dell system by taking off 256 MB of RDRAM, and $435 off the Compaq system by lowering it to 256 MB DDR RAM. Considering that these two types of RAM have far higher performance levels than standard PC133 RAM, you don’t need as much RAM to get the same or better performance levels.
Now, the Gateway system didn’t have the option of 512 MB of PC133 RAM, but it still has expandable space for more. So, you can add another 256 MB for less than $200 (You can even buy RAM as low as $100).
As for the G4 vs P4, the G4 733 does have slightly higher performance levels in benchmark tests (nowhere near 57%). However, the Athlon 1.3 also beats the P4, yet I’ve never seen a benchmark test of an Athlon against a G4 system. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Athlon is at least equal to the G4.
However, notice how every other option is equal to or BETTER than the options on the Mac, and still for a lower price.
Now, trying to compare new systems from the manufacturer to systems purchased elsewhere is skewed. I look at the Appl Store and see:
400MHz PowerPC G3
64MB SDRAM
10GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM
RAGE 128 Pro w/ 8MB
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K internal modem
15-inch display
Two USB ports
Two FireWire ports
$899
And it’s $100 to upgrade to 128 MB of RAM, bringing it to $999.
Now here’s the problem: I can’t find a system brand new that meets these lower requirements. Here’re the systems I found:
Dell PC
PIII 933 MHz (133 MHz FSB)
128 MB PC133 SDRAM
17" Monitor (Smallest option available)
20 GB UATA-100 HDD (7200 RPM) (Smallest option available)
16 MB ATI Rage 128 Pro
48x CD-ROM
8x4x32 CD-RW (Hey, it was free!)
Soundblaster 64V
56k modem
10/100 NIC
Harmon/Kardon speakers
$1,298
Compaq PC
AMD Duron 800 MHz
128 MB PC100 SDRAM
15" Monitor
20 GB UDMA HDD (Smallest option available)
16 MB TNT2 M64 Pro
48 CD-Rom Drive
JBL Platinum Speakers
ESS Allegra Audio
56k Modem
10/100 NIC
$943
Now, both these systems are in the higher-end of the value PC. They will both perform at higher levels than the iMac, with the possible exception of the fastest iMac (600 MHz G3, but it also costs more than these systems at $1,499)
However, I’ve said many times that a PC can be custom-built for less money and higher performance than almost any Mac. I’ve already posted a high-performance PC that is inexpesive that can be built from scratch. I forget if I posted it in this thread or another one, but I will dig it up eventually.
So, analyze this as you will, but I see this as rather condemning to the Mac. There are high performance PC’s available, near equal to the performance of the Mac, for lower prices. There are value PC’s out there that have higher performance capabilities than the iMac for equal or lower prices.
My conclusion? PC’s are cheaper and still maintain the performance capabilities people want.
“The spirit of the challenge”? I thought the current challenge was “price versus overall function”. But then you said…
… Which are all superficial aspects that in no way effect the performance of the computer. So which is it? Are you trying to argue price/function, are trying to argue which one is more visually and physically appealing?
Disingenious because you are finding the cheapest example you can of a Mac, and finding the most expensive example of a PC. “Spirit of the debate”, indeed.
My suggestion, Mr. Blades, is to drop this whole “Mac’s are cheaper” line, since it has less weight than a photon.
(And, of course, I know the only refutation that will be brought against my brother’s evidence will be “Mac’s may be more expensive, but they’re worth it!”… which, of course, is not what Joey’s challenge was.)
One thing I forgot to mention, if you would rather have a budget PC based on an Intel chip, you could always pick up a Celeron. They are much cheaper than PIII’s, and still have relatively high performance capabilities. However, I prefer Duron budget processors, because any Duron can be upgraded to an Athlon without changing motherboards, which can’t always be done with Intel chips.
Not to mention that Duron’s have higher performance levels than Celerons.
I have no desire to get into this hardware pissing war, but I have to add on thought.
My time is worth something. My peace of mind and enjoyment is worth something. To not have to deal with some of the Windows annoyances or worries, hardware difficulties, to not have Photoshop freeze on me time after time - that is WORTH quite a bit to me. Not having to be careful about what software I install on my computer (because you can’t just install anything on a PC, for fear of conflicts) is WORTH something to me. And I think it’s worth something to many Mac users.
It’s unfair to make any comparisons to the Pentium 4, because it’s just not very good.
And as long as I’m dropping links… G4 vs. x86 performance claims debunked.
yosemitebabe:
Hey, if you’ve found that your Mac is more stable and wastes less of your time than Windows machines you’ve used, go for it. Keep the Mac.
But those are subjective measurements. My experience has shown me that PCs are more stable and waste less of my time, so where does that leave us? Suggesting that a person who’s never owned a computer would be better off with a Mac because you like your Mac isn’t very helpful.
Although I’d much rather argue against “Macs cost more but they’re worth it” than this absurd “Macs are cheaper” claim.
It’s no less valid than recommending a PC because you like PC. Which is what people do every day.
You obviously got a hold of some lemons of Apples (sorry, I had to.) Some utter pieces of crap. Your bad luck, obviously, but I think your experience is the exception, not the rule. If all Macs were as crappy as the ones you used, Apple would be out of business by now, and it would not have such a loyal base.
As I have said in my previous posts, I would not recommend Macs to everyone. If someone just wants something really cheap that’ll get them on AOL, then a PC would probably be fine. If they want to play a lot of games, a PC would be the way to go. If they KNOW that they want a PC for specific reasons (like specific software, hardware tinkering, whatever) I would never try to talk them out of it. But if they are an artist who wants to get a graphics job, a Mac would be a good choice. (I’ve been looking at the want ads for graphics jobs in my area - a LOT of them require Mac experience.) If they are a grandma who wants a friendly OS, a Mac probably would be the way to go. A Mac would be a good choice for a lot of people, for many reasons.
All you can say is that Macs aren’t worth it to you. No worries - I won’t try to talk you out of that claim. They clearly are not for you. But they’re worth it to me, to Stoid, to AHunter, to Joey, to many many other people. And probably they’d be worth it to many other people, if they were ever allowed to find out about them. But the PC Weenies get their clutches in, go ballistic at the mere mention of Macs, and therefore a lot of new computer users get pushed into getting PCs. (That’s what happened to me, remember?)
As Mr2001 said, the P4 isn’t very good. It’s not as bad as that site claims, but it is still far below the performance levels Intel claimed it would have.
However, this exact same thing happened years ago with the introduction of the Pentium Pro. Intel touted the Pentium Pro as the next step from the Pentium, even though it performed similarly. Then the Pentium Pro evolved into the Pentium II then the Pentium III. I expect the same exact process will happen with the Pentium 4.
As for the Itanium…it’s going to be a piece of crap as well. Intel isn’t even really pushing it that much. However, it is supposed to get software developers used to making software for 64-bit and later, 128-bit processors.
It is true that AMD Athlon chips run better than the Pentium 4, which is why I would like to see a comparison of an Athlon against a Mac (However, there are minor glitches that sometimes need to be patched with Athlon systems).
Of course it’s valid. Your opinion counts just as much as the next person. In fact, Yosemite, if I were a random shmoe on the street, I’d take your word over most others simply because you have experience with both machines.
I think something Stoid hinted at (but only half-said) is that, plainly and simply, customers should be exposed to a wider technology base. I’ve seen the things Apple has been doing… they’ve managed to revive themselves quite well from five years ago. I don’t think they’ll ever replace PC’s, and unless Apple makes some really pathetic mistakes, PC’s will never replace Mac’s. And I think that’s a damn good thing… it promotes market diversity and competition.
Thanks again Monster. You’ve done some good homework. You are showing much better results than I’m getting, looking at my local PC suppliers.
I do want to point out something ironic:
The irony is that Apple used to make the same claim… i.e. that their costs were higher because their lowest performance machines were higher than the competition…
SPOOFE:
Hardly superficial. Clearly the consumer pays for smaller size, lighter weight, lower power, and durable metal casings. BTW, the PC I chose in my example demonstrates that this was part of my goal, even though it was not explicitly stated.
This is total BS and I really shouldn’t justify it with an answer… however, I point out that the Titanium G4 is actually the most expensive Mac you can buy (NOT THE CHEAPEST). I doubt very seriously that the Omnibook is the most expensive PC, for that matter. I simply selected the first slim-line PC that came close to the specs… This was not without considerable searching, BTW.
You’re trying to place words in my mouth. My claim is certainly not that Macs are cheaper. Instead, my assertion is that when all things are considered and some attempt is made to compare apples-to-apples (no pun intended), some Macs are cheaper than some PCs. Or stated in another way, Macs seem to be about the same price or sometimes lower than the AVERAGE price for pseudo-equivalent PCs. So far, both with my data and Monster’s this has been demonstrated to be true.
You said it, not me… of course, who am I to disagree? I think you’re right, if you look at a total cost of ownership model, some people will find Macs to be the better buy (i.e. “worth it”).
Mr2001:
That’s too bad because I suspect that means that Intel will fall way behind in the performance curve. The PIII architecture seems to be running out of gas…
Again, that was not my claim. You’re hearing what you expect to hear, not what I’m saying. My claim was that I had found better Mac systems for cheaper, when compared to the specific Dell systems my company was buying. I then proceeded to show you a couple of examples with current configurations.
yosemitebabe:
Actually, the single most prolific reason I hear nearly every day of my life is that Windows must be better because they’re 90% of the market…
500 billion flies can’t be wrong - cow shit is food!
SPOOFE:
I take back every thing I was thinking about you. This is clearly the most intelligent thing you’ve said in this entire thread… [wink]
BTW, I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. I use and actually like both platforms. I happen to prefer the Mac, but I was using PCs long before I ever used a Macintosh. In fact, I hated the Mac at first. I thought it was a fad toy, but in those days my employer forced me to convert from PC to Mac. It was only later, after actually trying to benchmark my own productivity that I realized that the Mac was better (those were DOS days, BTW). Later, when my employer changed their mind and forced me to switch from Mac to Windows, I again resisted. However, I decided to give my Wintel boxes a chance to prove themselves. Unfortunately, with my personal productivity benchmarks, the Windows machines don’t measure up… In fact, for some activities, I still take work home and do it on my Mac because I can get it done faster and with fewer frustrations. Nevertheless, I use Windows every day and I’m OK with that. I’m not anti Wintel (I used to be), I’m merely pro Macintosh.
[minor detail]
You can’t burn DVDs with any of the PC systems that were compared to the high-end Mac system.
[/minor detail]
I’m willing to admit that one can build a really good PC for far less than the comparable Mac. I think the companies are overcharging you. This leads to the question which populations you wish to compare – complete beginners, small businesses, expert hobbyists, or whatever.
I also think that having a basis in UNIX (with a command-line even) is good news for the Mac.