Macs seem to cost more than PCs - What's the value?

[FlyingPie]

Some people argue that Macs cost a lot more than PCs, and others argue that Macs are a good value for the money. I have what I think is a good example of a Mac machine costing significantly more than a similar PC, and not having as much in terms of features. I'd like to compare the MacBook Pro 17" with the HP Pavilion dv9700t series of laptops. The two laptops are about on the same level, but the HP costs quite a bit less, even with a couple of the extras (I've priced both online). This is a little frustrating, since I like MacOS and have considered buying a Mac next time I upgrade my computer.

 

MacBook Pro 17" ($2,799):

- CPU: 2.5ghz Intel Core 2 Duo

- RAM: 2GB

- Hard drive: 250GB (5400RPM)

- Optical drive: DVD dual-layer/single layer & CD burner/reader

- Display: 17" widescreen

- Video card: Nvidia 8600 GT with 512MB memory

- Backlit keyboard

- OS: MacOS Leopard

 

HP Pavilion dv9700t ($1,712.98):

- CPU: 2.5ghz Intel Core 2 Duo

- RAM: 3GB (free upgrade from 2GB)

- Hard drive: 250GB (5400RPM) - Plus space for a second hard drive

- Optical drive: Blu-Ray ROM, DVD dual-layer/single layer & CD burner/reader

- Display: 17" widescreen

- Video card: Nvidia 8600 GS with 512MB memory

- Built-in 5-in-1 media card reader

- OS: Windows Vista Home Premium

 

These configurations are very similar, but the macBook Pro costs over $1,000 more. The HP in this configuration adds Blu-Ray, a media card reader, and the ability to add an additional hard drive. The built-in media card reader is a nice feature, and it's also nice to be able to add a second hard drive (I have an earlier model with 2 hard drives, and it is nice having lots of space). At these prices, I'm not really sure the MacBook Pro would be worth it. This gives new meaning to the term "less is more". What would be the advantage of buying the MacBook Pro?

[2LMan]

Macs do tend to cost a bit more, mainly because of the support. Try calling HP and you'll get a guy in India who will want you to walk him through your issue. With a Mac, you are covered by Apple and can go to any Apple Store and talk to a real person face-to-face and ask questions about your Mac. Also, Macs come with EFI, giving it an edge when Windows finally "upgrades". The aluminum body and backlit keyboard are extremely nice. Lets not forget about the screen! I know for a fact that the screen on my Macbook Pro is AWESOME! I have had 2 laptops before this (One HP and one Dell), and there was a lot of light leakage around the edges and on the bottom. The Macbook Pro has an LED backlit screen and that makes all the difference. Mine looks better than most desktop monitors! Hope I could help!

 

[FlyingPie]

Thanks for the reply. I think a backlit keyboard and LED display would be nice. Support isn't too important to me though - In all the time I've used computers, I think I've only used tech support twice, due to physical issues with a couple printers I've had. I'm not sure I'm convinced that the premium for an Apple computer is worth it. However, if Apple would sell a version of OS X for other PCs, I'd be first in line to buy a copy.

[2LMan]

Same here. I just wanted to add that Macs are awesome. You really wont find a notebook that is sturdier or thinner than the Macbook Pro, and still have the specs it has. Its your choice. I just got tired of having to hassle my OS X install on my hackintosh everytime I wanted to update. I needed stability, and Macs have it.

[FlyingPie]

Yeah, I'm looking for the stability myself. Leopard runs on my laptop (only thing not working is the built in wireless ethernet), but it froze on me once. I think Apple has a nice OS and makes nice machines, I just think the price is a little high. Same goes for their desktops - it would be nice to have an upgradeable desktop Mac that isn't as expensive as the Mac Pro.

[awesomo]

The reason Mac costs alot is because of its ability to not get most viruses. The public thinks that is incredible so they can charge a ton of money

[vaporATX]

What's the value?

 

Have you checked the resale prices on Macs lately? Compare that to PC hardware.

[exman]

Resale value is meaningless if you had to pay $1k more to start with.

 

I have a MBP, I don't consider it good vaue compared to other alternatives from Dell and Lenovo et al. I bought it because I liked the way it look and feel and for OS X. But I am far from an Apple fanboi and I don't have any lame excuse to defend my purchase decision or Apple other than "I like it". Apple do overcharge, and they will continue to do so, because their customers are happy to pay the price.

 

My MBP LCD is no better than other 17" laptop LCDs. I had to change the gamma to 2.2 to make it look abit better.

[Embio]

the price difference can be explained thusly:

 

33% - better support

33% - much higher quality hardware (I dont mean choice of processer/GPU, I mean the design)

33% - admittedly, apple do overestimate the first two....

[GeekofComputers]

Buy a lets say 2499$ macbook pro

Buy a lets say 2499$ dell laptop

 

2 years later you sell the dell most likely you get: 750$

2 years later you sell the macbook pro most likely you will get: 1,500$

[macbrush]

Don't forget that you're buying a piece of hardware which also had all its software well thought out, to work with this particular hardware right from the beginning. And future updates of softwares will also be tailor made to that hardware to make anything as smooth as possible.

 

Not to mention that if you like and want to use Mac OS X, Apple hardware "supposedly" is the only choice, that alone is worth to charge a premium on top of other things.

 

But then I agree that performance wise, Apple hardware is overpriced.

[bone1977]

I recently when shopping for a new laptop and I gave a hard look at both the Macbook and Macbook Pro models. Comparing the Macbook Pro with desktop replacement versions of Windows PC, the $2799 Pro was vastly overpriced for a comparable machine based purely on the hardware, even compared to Sony Viao laptops which tend to be more expensive. The Pro looked better, had the superior screen, but thats about it. The cheaper Macbook Pro was also a bit pricey compared to similar PC models, but not as drastic.

 

Macbooks are a different story entirely. They compare very well with more portable Windows laptops. For the price they tend to have a better processor, similar memory, hard drive space, etc. They are very well built laptops that have a very nice look and feel to them. The only thing that I found lacking on a Macbook was the video. The top of the line black models use Intel based GPU's with only 144MB of memory on them. This is fine for day to day uses, but graphics performance is a bit subpar. Fortuatnly I wasn't looking to do grahipcs intensive stuff so I went with the Macbook.

 

I spent a good 3-4 weeks comparing the various models and decided that, with the exception of the video, the Macbook was the better value over comparable PC laptops. The Macbook Pros were the inferior product compared to like PC's.

 

I am very happy with my Macbook so far and I am glad I made the purchase. That being said I doubt I will ever buy a Macbook Pro, an iMac, or Mac Pro. For the price they simply do not compare to their PC counter parts. I understand Apple's desire to keep it all in the family, but I would really like to see them release OS X as a stand alone operating system that is not tied specifically to their hardware. That simple fact alone will forever keep them in the minority compared to Microsoft.

[InorganicMatter]

The advantages:

• Quality hardware. All-Intel systems manufactured by ASUS are going to last many more years than the AMD processor on an SiS chipset and ATI graphics all on a motherboard manufactured by Foxconn (looking at you, HP).
  
• Quality software. Apple cares about their operating system; it's based on the tried-and-true Unix system that doesn't get unstable with age, and it comes with quality applications and stable drivers.
  
• Long-lasting hardware due to quality software. Each release of Mac OS X gets faster, unlike Windows and Linux, where each release requires more processor and memory. I know people still using G4/G5 systems because they run as fast as (or faster than) the day they bought them.
  
• Support. Apple's support staff are knowledgeable technicians who speak English as their first language and don't just run through a script; a recent survey found their support has an 83% satisfaction rate, compared to Dell which was down in the 50s, and HP which was down in the 40s.
  

Of course, you pay for it. Really though, "expensive" is relative. You kids are too spoiled with your cheap computers. When I was young, $2000 wouldn't even get your foot in the door.

[analographi]

Support of mac is not that good.

 

Really makes a difference:

 

So small, so beautiful, so good material, so silent, this easily costs 1000.

 

HP are ugly, loud, plastic. most others in that prize range too.

 

buy the same config from sony, where you get a bit of quality and your are at the same prize as mac.

[inimicus]

Nice post, bone1977.

 

Very true. MacBooks do exceed the quality of PC laptops around the same price. MacBook Pros? Yeah, a lot of PC laptops do have better features for the price.

 

I worked in computer sales/repair for about three years, and I happen to know that a lot (read: not all) of high-end laptops ($2,000+ range) are built with cheap parts. Give these laptops better quality parts, and the cost and features will be about the same.

 

For a lot of people, having a system that doesn't require fussing with drivers to get hardware to work is worth the extra cash. Time is money.

 

I definitely enjoy systems where the software is written specifically for the hardware, versus a one-size-fits-all approach.

[FlyingPie]

Quality hardware. All-Intel systems manufactured by ASUS are going to last many more years than the AMD processor on an SiS chipset and ATI graphics all on a motherboard manufactured by Foxconn (looking at you, HP).

A quality PC can be built as well; it's just all in the decision of the hardware to include. Apple has simply made a decision to include certain pieces of quality hardware. And speaking of HP, I've used HP laptops for over 2 years, and I haven't had any problems with them crashing or being unstable.

You kids are too spoiled with your cheap computers. When I was young, $2000 wouldn't even get your foot in the door.

I also remember the days when computers cost multiple thousands of dollars. However, to make a fair comparison, I think we should compare today's prices with today's prices.

I definitely enjoy systems where the software is written specifically for the hardware, versus a one-size-fits-all approach.

I think the idea that OS X is more stable because its hardware support is limited is a bit of a myth. Sure there's some truth to it, because Apple only supports a limited set of hardware, but the fact is that OS X uses drivers to support hardware, just like Windows. All Macs have USB ports, and the Mac Pro also has PCI ports. USB and PCI are both industry-standard interfaces, which means that potentially anyone can make a device for the Mac. So, it's already possible that some company may create a device for the mac and write a buggy driver. That isn't a purely Windows-centric issue.

 

And thanks for your post bone1977. I had noticed the MacBooks seem to have a decent price, but the main thing making me avoid them is the video card. I'd want a machine that has a fairly decent 3D-capable video card (meaning I'd want a Mac with an Nvidia or ATI card). It's a little frustrating that the Macs with the good video cards also include quite a jump in price. As for their desktops, if the Mac Mini had a decent video card, I wouldn't mind buying one of those.

[InorganicMatter]

A quality PC can be built as well; it's just all in the decision of the hardware to include. Apple has simply made a decision to include certain pieces of quality hardware.

 

That was my point. People try to do a side-by-side of a Mac Pro and a {censored} off-the-shelf Gateway or HP. You can't even start to draw comparisons. If you built something like the Mac Pro, and used the same high-quality brand part Apple uses, you'd find their prices hard to beat.

[vaporATX]

HP makes garbage. At least compare the MBP to a quality product like a Thinkpad T series. A T61 speced out the same as the $2000 MBP will run you about $1800 bucks. Personally I'll take the Thinkpad w/ linux, but that's just me. It what I use now as a road machine and it's absolutely bulletproof.

[inimicus]

I think the idea that OS X is more stable because its hardware support is limited is a bit of a myth. Sure there's some truth to it, because Apple only supports a limited set of hardware, but the fact is that OS X uses drivers to support hardware, just like Windows. All Macs have USB ports, and the Mac Pro also has PCI ports. USB and PCI are both industry-standard interfaces, which means that potentially anyone can make a device for the Mac. So, it's already possible that some company may create a device for the mac and write a buggy driver. That isn't a purely Windows-centric issue.

I see your point, but it wasn't mine.

 

More specifically what I was referring to...

Pop in a Windows (any version) install CD/DVD.  Watch it post everything it's loading.  Every driver for every piece of hardware imaginable.  That's the pinnacle of one-size-fits-all.

[vaporATX]

I see your point, but it wasn't mine.

 

More specifically what I was referring to...

Pop in a Windows (any version) install CD/DVD. Watch it post everything it's loading. Every driver for every piece of hardware imaginable. That's the pinnacle of one-size-fits-all.

 

Too bad some of those drivers won't work right requiring a visit to the manufacturer's web site. In the case of 64 bit versions of Windows... good luck.

[FlyingPie]

That was my point. People try to do a side-by-side of a Mac Pro and a {censored} off-the-shelf Gateway or HP. You can't even start to draw comparisons. If you built something like the Mac Pro, and used the same high-quality brand part Apple uses, you'd find their prices hard to beat.

I guess as far as desktops go, I feel like I can make pretty good decisions on what hardware I'd use (using good name brands) and build one myself. What it comes down to is that I'd rather not pay another company's premium for something I can do myself. Laptops are different story though. If only laptops could be built as easily as desktops.

I see your point, but it wasn't mine.More specifically what I was referring to...Pop in a Windows (any version) install CD/DVD. Watch it post everything it's loading. Every driver for every piece of hardware imaginable. That's the pinnacle of one-size-fits-all.

I understand your point and I agree. But Windows isn't going to actually use all those drivers once it's installed. It just needs to be able to try to detect the hardware in order to install the correct drivers - or at least try to (yes, there is the possibility of incorrect hardware identification).

 

The open nature of PCs is both a blessing and a curse. But overall, I like that there's a lot of choice among hardware for a PC, which helps keep prices low. I like being able to upgrade/replace just one part in my computer rather than having to spend the money on a whole new computer if something fails (or having to buy replacement parts from the computer maker, who will often charge a premium just because they can). It seems like there aren't as many choices for Mac hardware (i.e., I've heard that things like video cards need to be EFI-compatible to work in a Mac, and there aren't many that I've heard of besides what Apple pre-installs).

 

Now if Apple allowed other companies to make clones, like did briefly in the 90s, I think that would be a boon to the market. If Apple would release the specs on what hardware they use to build Macs and license MacOS, other companies could build Mac-compatible computers with the same hardware, which should be just as stable as a real Mac. Clones could drive down the prices for Mac-compatible computers; sure, it would take a bit out of Apple's hardware profit, but MacOS would probably gain quite a bit of marketshare. But I'm not sure that will ever happen. There's always the argument that IBM is a good example of why Apple shouldn't allow Mac clones.

[stevesux]

well well, the way the global economy is going down apple should pull the stick out of their a**.

 

I happend to be a junior apple technician (still learning) but what i have seen has put me off.

 

Replacement Optical Drive (Superdrive for u mac's) = ~$300 US !!! yes u read that correctly (official australian apple price)
Replacement Motherborad (Logic Board for u mac's) for MacBook 13'' = ~$700 US !!!

 

 

so there you go, if something happens go and buy new AIO mac! lol

 

and MacBooks are disaster...they all come in for repairs (more common the keyboard faulty)

Has any of you noticed how hot the iMac's get ?? 50% more than my dell laptop after playing Half Life 2 for hours.

 

and iMacs ..wtf ..a beginner cant even add a HD by himself. esp. the newest models with the glass cover. NO way of having Raid.

 

Also wtf is with ancient 1 button mouse !!!!

 

Steve is loosing it.

 

and NO! Leopard is not that good in terms of speed, is way slower that Tiger and needs more memory.

 

Also to all those who bash Windows you need to play with Mac OS abit..Online updates for Leopard roughly 500mb and it restarts about 3-5 times! So cant {censored} about windows there.

 

Yes they are HUGELY overpriced considering ive seen all their inside parts..nothing flashy.

iMac suck (again) they are not sure what they are , desktops or laptops ?

and their insides are wraped in aluminium foil ...its actually funny hehehe

 

ps. i like Linux btw

[InorganicMatter]

^lawl, you're exactly the kind of customers Apple doesn't want or need. Go back to fixing your tin can computer.

[S.SubZero]

Too bad some of those drivers won't work right requiring a visit to the manufacturer's web site. In the case of 64 bit versions of Windows... good luck.

So tell me time traveller, is 2006 still like I remember it?

 

Perpetuating the "there are no 64-bit drivers" myth is fun and makes people feel all cool and YEAH RAGE AGAINST MIKKKRO$$$$$$$OFT!!! but n reality 64-bit drivers are becoming more and more plentiful by the day. The PC laptop I recently bought, a Sager 5793, the documentation assumes.. *assumes*.. Vista x64 will be the installed OS, even if the laptop is ordered without an OS. The driver disc has Vista x64 drivers for everything in the laptop, in every configuration it comes in. Likewise, my Dell Inspiron E1705, which came out before Vista did, has Vista x64 drivers for all of the hardware in it, and has had these drivers available since Vista went RTM way back early last year. My desktop PC, which I built myself, has XP64 on it.. you know, the red-headed stepchild OEM OS Microsoft has shoved off in a corner.. Yet I have drivers for everything in it. It's my gaming rig, and it runs everything I throw at it.

 

Is that printer you got for $30 at OfficeMax in 2004 going to have 64-bit drivers? Maybe, maybe not. Any new hardware, any hardware you're building today and buying today will have 64-bit drivers. As part of MS's certification programs any hardware that wants to be Vista certified must have a 64-bit driver.

[FlyingPie]

As part of MS's certification programs any hardware that wants to be Vista certified must have a 64-bit driver.

 

What about those of us who have chosen to stick with 64-bit XP? I don't imagine a driver made for 64-bit Vista would necessarily work for 64-bit XP.