Of course they are they are the #1 premium-priced sold. If you buy a PC you don't haft to pay a premium-price to get a good computer.

You need to look at value not price. The price is a meaningless indicator of what you're getting. Apple is making great gear no doubt about it. I am a bit concerned about the locked down nature of the iPad and the iPhone and Touch. Also, it would be cool if Apple was a bit more responsive to bugs in OS X. Recent reports of processors being tanked on the late Macbook Pros while playing audio files is awaiting a fix for instance. But generally it's a whole different world. If I was on a budget and couldn't afford a Macbook, I'd go for Ubuntu on a PC for sure. I'm done with MS.

If you're not one of the 9 out of 10, here's a very good reason as to why you should: http://www.computerworld...17_year_old_Windows_bug

did you read how the exploit works, it cant be exploited online
secondly, why dont you link em all the apple issues that have been happening
User profiles being deleted, vulnerabilites, and of course theres apples business practices and overpricing that are beyond terrible

If you wanna check your email and sit in an internet cafe and show of a cool logo on your laptop then Apple is for you, if you wanna game or do 'anything you want' with your computer, apple is the worst choice on the planet. Either way, with ideneb i can run MacOS on my PC, and it didnt cost me overpriced hardware and all of apples proprietary garbage. What a deal :)

It's what I've been saying all along, those who can afford a Mac own one, those who can't don't or just haven't been enlighten yet. I'm so proud of my nephew, he just saved up his money from his part time job and bought a brand new MacBook Pro! What a cool kid. Of course he has his uncle's good taste!

or just MAYBE, ppl who buy higher priced PC's wanna game, which is still something apple isnt known for. Apple products are overpriced HYPE, nothing more. My pc can do everything an Apple can, i even have apple OS on dual boot, and a similarly priced apple would be CRIPPLED beyond belief and half as powerful as my system. You can be proud of your boy all you want, but he failed. He purchased something that is a ripoff, solely because of the 'cool' factor. Bravo, teaching your kid the value of a dollar. But this article did prove one thing, Americans really are not that intelligent.

Number one: I said he's my nephew, not my kid and Two: why are you assuming I'm an American? No one outside of America uses Macs? America is the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth... and they got that way by being dumber than any nation on earth? LOL. Looks like late night TV has found it's new comedian sensation.

Bravo Apple! Hey Some of you say overpriced? Often it's true Macs are *a bit* overpriced. That is why you buy them USED! I paid $800 for a used MacBook Pro 13" only 4 months used. In 2008 I got a 6 months old Mac Pro 8-Core, $2200. And that's the way to do it.

Smart man. That's a simple tip that most overlook. :-)

*shrug* If I am going to buy used I can save even more by buying a used PC.

From the perspective of what you are actually getting for your money you only have to take a look at one of the articles that describes what actually makes up an apple product.

Once such article (I don't have the link with me but trust me such articles do exist) took apart a macbook air and detailed all the components and their costs and for those propriatory components that where found they were costed according to a knowledgeable electronics guru.

What they found was that the Mac would actually cost 55% of it's RRP to build so that's either a 45% mark-up or a 45% rip-off which ever way you look at it (give or take for a bit of profit, granted).

A PC from a good OEM will have components which where purchased in bulk and so the cost when bought and used in the construction of the resultant pc is minimal and so some OEMs make a small profit on their sales as they don't pass on all their R&D costs etc directly to the consumer.

The manufacturer gamble is to produce in bulk at which point they risk of selling for less and still making a decent profit is not so great. What apple does is to produce each machine like it was uniquely put together and charge the end-user as much as they think they can get away with or rather fool you into paying.

When it comes to the OS you essentially get that free with an OEM PC but you are still charged for it as part of the unit cost with a mac (again the cost of a single copy of the OS makes up part of the cost of the machine).

With a PC from a decent OEM you can haggle to reduce your unit price if you do not want windows (some say it is hard but I've done it with a Dell PC and got £12 off - the price they are charged for a copy by Microsoft). I'd love to hear what someone would be told if they asked the same question of Apple (it is your right to purchase a computer with no OS - yes, even a mac, but whether you get it cheaper is up to the reseller).

Looking at the headline, the first thing that came to mind was:

"Only because they're so overpriced".

'nuff said.

@roj Oh please come on! Have you seen what's inside those $500 Compaq garbage? By inside I mean software, forget the hardware, and what you got is TRIALWARE EVERYWHERE! Antivirus, productivity suite, burning software, games, everything. That is how HP, Acer & others do it.

Building a good custom PC comparable to a Mac Pro Quad-Core may cost you $500 less but that's pretty much it. Now you gonna have to buy a copy of Win7 (OEM $100) and have poor or "limited support" from...Taiwan!

Don't leave out India!

$500 less? Try $1000 less (Canadian). Just last month we upgraded one of the machines in the studio, and we were considering a Mac Pro. I ended up rolling a Windows 7 machine instead (we have multiple licenses of our main 3D animation software for both platforms - rendering is VERY important to us).

In short, for $1813 (almost $700 less than the base single CPU Mac Pro), we built a machine with:
2 lower end 6MB cache Xeon CPUs (real world - 1.5 times Mac Pro performance when rendering - where it counts)
8 GB memory (over double the Mac Pro)
1TB drive (almost double the storage)
5850 Radeon (over 4 times the performance)
oh yeah, and a Blu Ray burner.

The 'Apple tax' shrunk a bit after they switched to Intel, but over the past couple of years it's crept up again, especially on the high end.

For example, the base Mac Pro comes with a 640GB SATA drive. If you want a 2TB drive, it adds $350 to the cost. If you want a 2TB drive in the second bay, it's straight up $550 extra for a drive that you can pick up from any computer store for around $150.

That's just offensive.

I think the debate about which computer is better is like trying to convince someone that an Apple (lol) is better than an Orange. It really boils down to taste, perception, and economics. In the end however the complexity of the consumer consumption formula gives way to basic economics: you can put more Apples on the shelves for customers to buy at $2.49 a pound but if Oranges are selling for 4 pounds a dollar, more people are going to buy Oranges than Apples because their perceived utility of an Orange will outweigh that of the Apple. Hence, Apple may capture more of the high end U.S. market share but the overall worldwide market share is dominated by Windows-based PCs and that's all that matters in a globalized economy.

There really aren't many laptops over 1400$ that are really worth it until you get to the panasonic toughbook..

What happened to Commodore 64 news? How come no one talks about that anymore? I am so bored with this Crapple vs Microshaft. Time to talk about Baud rates, 5.5 inch floppies, and high speed Dot Matrix!!!

Maybe it's just me (or any other true computer builder), but I just cannot rationalize the cost when of a Mac when I can perform all of my own maintenance. Both are 64-bit platforms (at least, that I use), and both work flawlessly.

@therealbillybob: Just for a serious question: for a user such as myself, understanding that the stability of any system is proportionate to the care taken when designing and maintaining said system, under what circumstances would you recommend to someone such as myself to spend twice the money for hardware that is technologically inferior?

Someone with your skills, that can give maintenance to your computer, can charge 200 to 300 per hour, easily to fix other peoples PC's. Probably you do it for free, just because gives you importance, or status. But if you value your time so little, there you have a problem. Most people that buy macs value their time more than their pride. They buy them because they are easier to handle and don't need continuous support. In contrast, PC owners need to pay for support (or get a geeky friend like you around to fix the problems, having to pay them homage, or free pizzas) for most people without geeks nearby it is expensive to fix a PC, and more often than not, incomplete; the computer always has a new issue soon after being "fixed". In the long run this is very very expensive. Mac provides support included in the price of a machine in the Genius bars and that adds value to the purchase. If you fail to see that, is only because for you it is not added value. You look after your own computers, so the value proposition of apple is irrelevant to you. You probably feel threatened by it, as your geekness will not be valued so highly by non-PC owners.

A power-user as yourself obviously does not need a mac and will never ever be seduced by the value proposition of the mac service. It is irrelevant to you. You only see the cost of the parts used to build the machine, because you value your time to fix it very little. Imagine if you could invest all the time keeping your computer running into making money instead!

You obviously fail to see that for each nerd like you, there are 100s (no make it 1000s) of non-power users. Those are the ones that matter to Apple. Not you. Your are worthless to them. If you fail to see that, then there is no hope for you. You will hate apple for the rest of your life. And with a reason: it devaluates your pride. A non power user can do as much (at least to his/her own eyes) than you, without the computer geek aura around him/her.

Please realize, I was not trying to drag anyone into an argument by my question, I just wanted to see if there was possibly a logical side that I was missing. Your evaluation is somewhat correct - though slightly misguided. I have plenty of things to do other than spend all day fixing PC's (be it OS X or Windows). I do help friends, but not for any acclaim or "free pizza" - though that certainly wouldn't hurt ;-) I do it because they are *friends* and I see them as being important people to me, not out of some desire for me to be viewed as important in their lives. If you really want me to hear you out, why are you attempting to insult me?

Also, I do not feel in any way threatened by Apple in the slightest. Your statement regarding that "[my] geekness will not be valued so highly by non-PC owners" is a shoddy attempt to insult me further. If this was true, why would I *choose* to use 2 different types of Macs and even go as far as purchase my own iPhone 3G? You're gonna love this... I actually upgraded my ATT 8125 WinMo to get the iPhone 3G... rofl. Why did I choose the iPhone instead of a WinMo device? Because it better allowed me to integrate the rest of what I use on a daily basis, and subsequently simplify the way I live my life.

My theology is simple: so long as my wallet can afford it, buy the best tool for the job. I own a Windows-based PC as my main rig for several simple reasons:
1) It is the environment I am most proficient with
2) I can upgrade/replace hardware with pretty much any newer/higher-end technology I desire so long as there is a driver for it. For this, I only have 2 options: a) Windows, b) Linux. I chose Windows because of reason #1.
3) I could afford to use extremely high-performing components in a quality build for significantly less cost than what it would take me procure the same computer from Apple.

"You obviously fail to see that for each nerd like you, there are 100s (no make it 1000s) of non-power users." No, I don't fail to see that. I see it in everyday life, and your figure is probably grossly under-stated. But if you refer to my original question, my specific question was:
"for a user such as myself, understanding that the stability of any system is proportionate to the care taken when designing and maintaining said system, under what circumstances would you recommend to someone such as myself to spend twice the money for hardware that is technologically inferior?" However, through your inept beginning of a response, I will give you credit that you did in fact answer my question:
"Those are the ones that matter to Apple. Not you. Your are worthless to them"
So, techs are worthless to Apple, eh? I'd love to hear Steve Jobs' response to that. FYI, I do NOT hate Apple, I love the way in which they have reinvented the desktop/support experience and have driven other companies (read: MS) to attempt to do the same thing. Competition is a good thing, not a bad one. Once again, you mistake my intentions.

Bravo! Nice job of troll-stomping, my hats off.

But, you ask

"Just for a serious question: for a user such as myself, understanding that the stability of any system is proportionate to the care taken when designing and maintaining said system, under what circumstances would you recommend to someone such as myself to spend twice the money for hardware that is technologically inferior?"

And then you say

"I *choose* to use 2 different types of Macs and even go as far as purchase my own iPhone 3G?"

And then you answer your own question

"Because it better allowed me to integrate the rest of what I use on a daily basis, and subsequently simplify the way I live my life."

So stop whining that they are more expensive as hardware. You don't care about the hardware, you care about the value proposition in terms of your way of life.

So your question was a very inept attempt at trolling, because you did not mean it (and that is the very heart of trolling). That's why you got the aggressive tone from me. No other reason.

Peace bro!

Wow! It really takes a special kind of smug to love the smell of your own farts as much as you do. I take it you're also vegan and drive a Prius?
I see your ivory tower wobbling. You may want to come back down to Earth, where us commoners live, you elitist.

@Luisd - Ya' don't know me, so don't judge me like that. You conceded that I'm not the average computer user, so why assume I'm the average forum user? You bit my head off, for what reasons I'm not sure we'll ever know, to jump in and respond to a question that *was not posed to you*. However, I'm fine with a response so long as it branches from my HONEST AND SINCERE question. I admit I'm not perfect (nobody is). Recognizing this, I simply desired to see if there was any side to the Apple vs everything else discussion that could justify the larger price tag on Apple computers (besides support, as stated in my question).

If you don't have an honest answer, bugger off. I feel like I'm wasting time in even responding to you, but you are irritating me and I feel somewhat compelled to let you know that your ASSUMPTIONS about me are wrong.

Because the average forum user is a computer geek! I don't know any normal average person that actually posts in Beta news!

So then, following simple logic, is smug? Then, yes I'm smug. I love a good steak, juicy and bloody. I couldn't care less about cars, I don't agree with the American view that you are defined by what you drive. That's so so 80's.

But now, coming to the actual topic, my answer was HONEST and SINCERE. You answered yourself! And I quote it again "Because it better allowed me to integrate the rest of what I use on a daily basis, and subsequently simplify the way I live my life."

Your very own answer to your very own SINCERE question was that you don't care about the cost of the hardware, but about the value proposition in the way it simplifies your life.

What exactly did I say that upset you so much?

If you buy a Mac in my area, good luck on finding someone to repair it. I think people have to travel 1 1/2 hr. away to get a Mac looked at, and I live in a college town.

So Apple has over 90 percent of the premium PC market.
And over 90 percent of Windows users are still running nine year old Windows XP
That's two ninety percent trends that are hard to ignore.

Many Windows users are still building desktop computers. I shudder at the thought of being tied to a desktop with my computer. My 17" MacBook Pro with WiFi removes the leash that used to tether me to a desk. The thought of going back there is revolting to contemplate.

I'll order the top-end iPad the first day apple takes orders for it. The $30 per month unlimited data plan makes it a no brainer.

I wonder if the iPad will be counted in those computer sales stats. I don't believe they currently do that for the iPod Touch.

The iPad is sub-$1,000, so no, it won't be counted in those figured. Besides, the iPad is Apple's response to netbooks, and is NOT a laptop/desktop replacement. Could you use it as such, certainly. However, it lacks critical functionality to truly act as such.

@Joe - Normally I don't grievously disagree with you. However, your statement concerning the Laptop Hunters commercials is completely skewed. In the overwhelming majority of those commercials, the buyer was looking for a laptop to meet their needs AND cost point. In each case, the buyer found a comparable Windows laptop at well under the $1000 price point. If you look at corresponding laptop sales, you'll easily see that Windows-based laptops are on the RISE in sales, *especially* in the sub-$1000 market. All indicators point to the idea that the Laptop Hunters commercials were a complete *success*.

Apple has succeeded in providing a quality user experience on premium-priced standard PC equipment. However, Microsoft has succeeded in providing the same quality experience on the same and even *more advanced* hardware, at a substantially reduced end-user cost. Winner: clearly Microsoft.

Now, people will start taking about Total Cost of Ownership/etc. However, the vast majority of PC/laptop purchases are not driven by TCO, but rather:
1) How comfortable am I with the system configuration (Intel/AMD, Windows/Mac OS/Linux, etc)?
2) How does having the equipment reflect my perception of myself as a computer user?
3) How much does it cost?

Depending on how you answer the first 2 questions often influences how much you are willing to spend, depending on your lifestyle. If money is no factor, then #3 may be irrelevant - but that is not the average person. To the average person, cost is a significant factor unless you are purchasing a computer for vanity purposes.

The only thing this article goes to prove is that Apple fans are willing to pay elevated prices for at least one of the following reasons:
1) They love OS X (personally, this is sufficient for me - do you need another reason?).
2) They like to be considered 'trendy' and believe that a Mac aids this effort (aesthetics).
3) They actually believe that OS X is the only secure OS and don't want to bother with learning computer security or taking personal responsibility in computing habits.

Before anyone slams me for #3, hold off just a second and let me explain: I love OS X. I think it's fairly secure and stable straight out of the box. This is something that Apple has repeatedly touted and waved over the head of a floundering Windows 9x/ME/XP Home/Vista Home series of OS's that have proved to be unstable for many. However, is OS X bulletproof/virus-proof? No. It's simply less targeted because it's not the easier target. Windows has traditionally required more end-user configuration to provide an equally secure environment. This is only furthered by the fact that any attempt by Microsoft to integrate it's various security/antivirus/browsing/multimedia applications into the OS have been met with extreme prejudice over concerns of a monopoly. However, when Apple does the *same thing*, it's simply shrugged off and glossed-over by a simple "Well, but that's an Apple/Mac thing.". If we really want to compare apples to apples, let's see Apple open up OS X to be allowed legally to be installed on *any* standard computer hardware and see if they can pull of the same level of stability that Microsoft has with Windows 7.

Overall:
Apple wins hands-down on user experience
Microsoft wins hands-down on being the most cost-efficient alternative with the most versatility in regards to hardware compatibility.

the first paragraph says all that needs to be said... well put.

Ok, Apple may sell 9 of 10 premium-priced PCs. But what does it mean? Does it mean Mac is better than PC? Or simply because macs are overpriced? Does it mean consumers are more willing to pay more for mac, or simply because mac users have no choice?

I love skewed perspectives. Notice how this article points out multiple times that their frame of reference is the US retail market? That's because it's the only way to make the Macs sound successful. It sounds exciting when you said "9 out of 10 premium PCs sold is a Mac" (actually, that's a misnomer, since the whole PC vs. Mac ad campaign pointed out that Macs and PCs have NOTHING in common lol) but when you add in "in the US retail market", well it doesn't sound so great anymore. It's sort of like saying "9 out of 10 premium gaming consoles sold is a PS3.... in the Japanese retail market!"

Ok, so the Mac market share soared from 5% to 10% in the US.. so what? Where does Apple's market share stand world wide? 1%? 2%? Give me a break. The only reason the Macs are selling in the US is because America is the only country in the world where people can easily be convinced by some lame TV ad that you MUST have some shiny, over priced product. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs and his gang are laughing all the way to the bank.

Well obviously you love skewed perspective, being yours terribly skewed. Closing your eyes to the trend in Europe and Australia, does not stop it. Why is it 90% in the US, because it is where they started. They are pushing their muscle abroad, and from the look of things here in Europe they are in a very fast growing curve. Same goes for Latin America, the growth there is also noticeable.

What trend? Show the numbers, don't just shake your ineffectual fist at reality like a cornered liberal. Yeah, I'm sure there's a lot of Macs being purchased in Central America - after all, their only worth about five month's pay to the average citizen there.

You could google this yourself common!

http://www.appleinsider....om_us_retail_slump.html

Choice, it boils down to choice. As a PC/MAC user I didn't have a choice of vendors when I bought my iMac, no competition means no price wars. In the PC world there is choice, choice to find the lowest cost computer and therefore it keeps competition high and prices low. I really don't see anything for MAC users (I'm also one of them) to be proud of here. The last company that tried to give us a choice got shut down and the crazed Mac users pretty much danced in the streets. Meanwhile Steve and the gang are trying to figure out how to convince us to over pay for something else. :(

Overpay usually means, "I can't afford it, so I must find a way to limit it's importance in order to feel better about myself."

Yeah.., Steve Ballmer cannot afford a mac. Good point.

Macs are sexy. But as far as desktop computers go, I have only one route - pick the best components, pick my own OS and other software, assemble everything together, and voila - a screaming machine, no cr*pware.

There is something about assembling those things that make me never look at computer manufacturers.

My last PC I purchased was more than 10 years ago. My first computer was an Apple IIc. I know a number of people (sister, brother-in-law, dad, girlfriend, friend at work, friend not at work, etc.) that have BUILT premium Windows PCs to their specifications. Spending between $1,000 and $2,000. I know the percentage is small, but it would be interesting to know the number of home-built or custom-built PCs vs. Apple's market share.

I use PCs at work and home. They help me make money and keep me educated and entertained. I own an iPhone and an iPod. Great products. But I think this whole Microsoft vs. Apple debate is kinda weird. Why advocate so much for a bunch of rich companies and their rich managers? I think a lot of PC users are in a reactionary mode; they get pissed when the media and fan boys constantly pimp Apple and slam Microsoft. I can see how they get pissed off. Apple makes great products but they have so much control of the outcome. It is easier to assure quality, if you have more direct control at every point during design/development, production, marketing, and sales for a computer. If Microsoft tries to exert such control they get beat down by the EU or our Justice Dept. Whatever, I buy from both companies and will continue to do so as long as they serve my needs. (Unless Ballmer or Jobs become even worse jerks in their attempts to take over the world, then I...I don't know what I will do.)

Yes of course. But how much time do you invest into building one? 2 hours, 1 day, 3 days? How much do you think your time (as such a clearly skilled person as you are) is worth it? Minimal wage? $100 per hour, $200 per hour? If you were going to build it for someone else, how much would you charge for your time? If you had to make a living? Do you think ti would still be so cheap?

Just food for thought.

Of course not. However, if you are comfortable with having to troubleshoot your own problems in the event that, after assembly, the computer does not function properly, that's the price we pay. Same said if we fry a part because we forgot to wear an ESD. To non-techs, this is a frightening endeavor. You made mention of this in a previous reply, and I believe it rings especially true here:
Most people are not techs. They simply want their computer to just 'work'. I think we can all admit that, as people, we almost naturally equate more expensive items to be of higher quality. It makes sense that an individual whom is concerned with having to perform troubleshooting steps would be more accepting of paying a higher dollar amount for similar technology, just to alleviate themselves from the burden of having to take their own time out to investigate computer issues.

It shouldn't take longer that 30 minutes to build and have your OS with all drivers installed. Oh wow that is such a waste of time. LMAO

Yep, completely agree!

Do you mean to build the computer from scratch? Getting the bits, putting it together, troubleshoot it, etc? If you can do than in 30minutes, you should run your own business. (No irony, I;m serious), you would have plenty of costumers willing to have local support at a good price!

@Joe: "Microsoft spent six months marketing premium Windows PCs during its "Laptop Hunters" campaign. These marketing efforts apparently failed"

Joe, on numerous occasions you have told us just how effective Microsoft's advertising has been. How it's OEMs have benefited. And how it has hurt Apple.

Funny how things turn out, isn't it?

Also, if you actually watch the commercials they're almost all explicitly about NON-premium laptops. Price is a concern and the hunters are trying to get good bang for their buck... not simply to spend as much money as possible.

I checked your site at http://darkforgegfx.com/ but I could not find anything. Please let us know which professional nuke installations will be spreading the truth.

haha! yea... if you were a real computer geek..

1. you'd know that yea, its called ****ing bootcamp and win7 runs very well on it.

2. you prob never have owned a mac ever or recently, yea, you can have your $300 in savings but i'll take my superior touchpad, screen, and overall design.

3. you don't know s*** on what people want.

4. apple computers DON'T COME WITH s***WARE installed to degrade the out of box experience.

i was once like you.. before i actually bought and used a newer mac. sure its easy to bash a product you've never used but as a geek and owner of over 15 laptops in the last 3 years; my currnet laptop is a macbook pro 13 that rocks both os x snow leo and win7 ultimate x64. can you run os x leo in vmware on a windows machine?

when have you heard from anyone that.. "wow, this dell is so fast!".. nope, i hear more.. "wow, this dell sucks.. i don't a 30day trial to symantec or trial of office.. why is it so slow, i've only had it for 2 weeks"

what was your last mac again?

BTW, you can run OS X (10.5 or 10.6) in a virtual environment on a Windows-based PC.

I love the experience that OS X provides, but it's still not worth the inflated price IMO. I own an iPhone 3G and plan to upgrade to the next iPhone when it comes out (so I'm definitely not anti-Apple). I have a Dell Latitude D830 running XP Pro and a Q9650 Win 7 desktop machine. I also have a Macbook Pro (1.83Ghz, OS X 10.5.8) and a 27" iMac on 10.6. I use all of them professionally and personally. However, my core rig is my Q9650 because it simply leaves all the others in the dust for gaming, video production, and photo editing. It cost me $1050 to build with the following specs:
4GB RAM, 24" LCD, custom cooling/case, 1TB HDD (non-RAID), 1x DVD+-RW, Radeon 4850 X2 2GB.
My 27" iMac runs similar specs (screen is a bit larger, HDD is a bit smaller, video card is definitely not as powerful) and cost over $2000.

Guess what? The Macbook Pro sucks on battery life and has crashed twice. Other than that, all of them have provided me with a 'premium' user experience. But my Windows 7 Q9650 than is barely considered a 'premium PC' (costing over $1000) still bests any configuration that I've come across, including the i5 iMacs.

"BTW, you can run OS X (10.5 or 10.6) in a virtual environment on a Windows-based PC."

Without a valid license, maybe. But nobody is going to do that in a business environment?

Comparing a Q9650 to an i5 just shows how little you know about hardware too. And remember to add the cost of a high-end monitor to your iMac comparison. Not a cheap Taiwanese LCD screen. There is a massive price difference between a cheap 24" LCD and a premium 27" LED.

I could not find any 27-28" LEDs to compare, but the highest quality non-Apple LED at New Egg is this one and it costs almost as much as your 27" iMac alone. It is only 24" but it has a better resolution.

http://www.newegg.com/Pr...-_-24-176-106-_-Product

Sorry, the HP screen resolution is much much worse than the 27" iMac (2560x1440 vs 1920x1200). It is only slightly better than the 21"

And you still think that Apple is expensive and HP are giving you a good deal?

"Comparing a Q9650 to an i5 just shows how little you know about hardware too." Eat your words, you obviously fail to note the L2 that the i5 lacks, as well as the speed. The i5 is an Intel push to drive the market into the iX era/new LGA socket and get away from the QXXXX naming convention, and is more of a "prosumer" version of the quad-core Intel CPUs when compared to the Q9650 or i7.

I'll surrender the point about the HP LCD vs Apple 27" LED display - there is no contention, the LED is the clear winner.

Ummm DFG is not my site. That is just a company that I work for. I have my hosting. However I have not gotten to changing it yet.

@nightops - Maybe for gaming an i5 will not gain you much over a core 2 but their architectures are very different and they are much more powerful, use less power and run cooler than a Q9650.

BTW, when I quoted the build earlier using the HP 24" LCD, that's not the 24" I use. I use a Dell Ultrasharp 2408 WFP, which is significantly better than the HP. Still, it's not the same as a 27" LED, but for gaming, it's actually better.

Gaming on an i5 isn't bad, but yes, it doesn't truly compare with a Q9650. For video (including AVCHD) and photo editing, the Q9650 is hands-down the winner. There have been numerous reviews touting this fact. For everyday computing, it's pretty much a wash.

@seamonkey420 Haha I like the bit about the 30-day trial of Symantec & Office. My sister in law just bought one of those $599 Acer laptop from BestBuy, damn thing is just full of trialware.

I know this seems puzzling to some PC users but the STARK REALITY is that the WIN PC user experience is so devalued that PC buyers are ONLY willing to pay the CHEAPEST PRICE possible to surf the internet or email on a WINDOWS PC. To them a personal computer is just specs because honestly, the brand matters little if it's Dell or HP or Acer, it's all somewhat shoddy to shoddy components and you get "the free" OS - Windows. To these people, it's all the same virus-ridden system crashing-incompatibility-components breaking down "thing." It only matters to how little you can pay for the best specs so to them, why would anyone pay even $50 more?

Mac users of OSX have experienced ZERO viruses in 9 years and 75 million users - not because it's "obscure." (if that were true, why are flavors of WIN NT that are only running on 250,000 machines get zombotted?) - the Mac experience is worth up to $1,000 MORE because of a myriad of reason but most important of all - the Mac user experience is not the same as the WIN PC experience. It's as simple as that. It is worth more more so people pay more. It's as simple as that. Can Motel 6 charge you $199 for a room and you'll be happy about it? Of course not. Because at $199 a night, you want much more - same difference with a WIN PC and a Mac. Yes, a WIN PC is a room with a roof but there's better - if you are fine with a Motel 6 room, great but don't think the $199 W Hotel is the same as your purchase just because I also get a room with a bed in it. Again, maybe you don't want to spend more than $49 for a room - GREAT but do notthink you are getting the EXACTLY same experience - YOU ARE NOT.

AND it's also important to note that the best selling Macs are NOT the low price choices (macbook or mini mini) - instead - note the ASP is $1,500 meaning that price is SECONDARY and it's NOt just about buying a Mac to get a Mac.

And analysts don't get it either. They flat out do not understand the mac market is built on VALUE buyers who do not loath the personal computer user experience - that is why PC makers are scrambling to hit margins of 2% of $475 while Apple continues to grow at 30%+ growth AND with margins of 35% at $1,500 ... (in essence, every Mac sold is worth the return of 17 PC's sold) ... if you cannot see how that is different, well, it's DIFFERENT and NOT THE SAME market. The PC market is a necessity market based on internet-email at the lowest possible price because it's so horrible so why spend more money. The mac market is based on user interest of the product - that is the difference between the outlet bread market and the bakery.

"Mac users of OSX have experienced ZERO viruses in 9 years and 75 million users - not because it's "obscure." (if that were true, why are flavors of WIN NT that are only running on 250,000 machines get zombotted?)"

I have an issue with this. Global Mac sales amount to 3-4% of total PC sales. It just seems to me the lack of malware is specifically for the obscurity reason.

Second, NT machines get targeted (sometimes) becase some code is shared. Most popular Windows server is 2003, second most popular is 2000 - both versions have significant shared codebase with the older NT 4.0. But if you look at the newer ones, such as Windows Server 2008 - it has a completely different and a much lower vulnerability profile than the older versions - because most of NT 6.0 has been rewritten. The same goes for Vista - there are far fewer vulnerabilities for Vista specifically than for XP specifically - again, because of the better and newer code base of NT 6.0.

"because most of NT 6.0 has been rewritten."

Yeah - sure it has.

"The same goes for Vista"

Double LOL.

It's easy to get 30% growth when you comprise such a small amount of total # of computers in use across the globe. The larger the percentile, the less growth you can acquire, it's just common sense.

Don't get me wrong, I think Apple/OS X provides end users with a quality experience - but for most, that experience doesn't justify the inflated price. You can build or even flat out buy a Windows 7-based PC for almost half the cost of an Apple computer running the same hardware.

It's funny how you compare Windows to Motel 6. Let's make another analogy:
You may start out with Motel 6, but because of compatibility, you can easily swap out windows, doors, roof, landscaping, amenities, and pretty much everything except the substructure at will. So you go from Motel 6 ($49/night) to The Ritz (upgrade for another $20/night) for less than the cost of Brand X's Doubletree Inn ($199/night) and have a potentially much more positive experience. However, because of Doubletree's policy, you cannot at anytime upgrade to another chain's hotel or even your existing room because they want to ensure your 'experience'.

"You can build or even flat out buy a Windows 7-based PC for almost half the cost of an Apple computer running the same hardware."

Show me your comparison.

therealbillybob: just so you know, the number of vulnerabilities in Vista is about 40% of those in XP.

You did not know the NT 6.0 was a rewrite of the OS? Then why are commenting? Trolling again?

Mac Pro configured as you stated with 32GB RAM, 2TB in RAID5, and Dual Xeons @ 2.93Ghz "Nehalem" with 3x Geforce GT 120 (which are really pretty crappy, but you asked for it), and a 24" display - $13,098.00

Custom PC:
ASUS Z8PE-D12 motherboard, 2x Xeon 5570 2.93Ghz Nehalems, 36GB of RAM (+4GB than Mac, Crucial - not some off brand), 2TB in RAID5, 2x Radeon 5870 (more costly than 3x GT120s, and will blow away 3x GT 120's in EVERYTHING), Logitech illumated keyboard and G9x mouse, 24" HP 2475w display, Cooler Master RC 690 case, Athena 1100W server power supply - $6,732.31

@OneToOne - Where is your proof that NT 6.0 was a rewrite? Or are you just trolling?

Unless you were on the development staff for NT 6.0, or any MS OS, you can't really claim *anything* was a rewrite - you can only regurgitate what MS had said or make pure conjecture.

I can't believe someone would ignore "Intel® Core™ i7-860 processor; 8GB DDR3 SDRAM; DL DVD±RW/CD-RW drive; LightScribe labeling; 1TB hard drive; wireless LAN (802.11a/b/g/n); Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit or ntel® Core™ i7-920 processor; 9GB DDR3 memory; DL DVD±RW/CD-RW drive; 1TB hard drive; Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit" for $1209/1099 respectively and buy "Intel® Core™2 Duo processor; DL DVD±RW/CD-RW SuperDrive; 1TB hard drive; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM; built-in AirPort Extreme (802.11a/b/g/n); Bluetooth; Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard" for $1499.

Just kidding, I can believe it.

I'd love to see what the overall picture is, ie: what people are buying online or what ratio of people out there of the entire 'monitored' PC user base builds their own computer etc. I already know that not everyone holds a price vs. value principle. Some people just want what they want. I can easily respect that. But if that's how 9 out of 10 people that buy computers from Best Buy/B&M think then how on God's earth can we complain about debt or a recession?

For me it paints a very confusing picture. Either 1. only the upper middle to top spenders EVER buy computers from Best Buy, 2. people in general aren't very educated about what they're buying and are buying the 'sexy' stuff because they think it's better than the big black box or 3. apple's tv ads have dangerously entranced people.

I'm impressed with how many morons (Read: broke PC users) betanews can attract with one article. Like catching flies with sticky tape.

Great job Joe. Keep up the good work. :o)

Go Apple!!!!!!

So what are you (Read: broke Mac users) doing here?

One last thing though... does retail share include online orders? Dell and Lenovo make a lot of their sales online, while Apple makes a surprisingly high number of sales in their stores. It would be interesting to know how retail is precisely calculated.

"Nine out of 10 premium PCs purchased from US retail brick-and-mortar stores or online sites (including major chains and Apple Store)"

Retail doesn't include either online sales (which obviously means Dell loses out a lot) or business sales not done through retail (which is most of the big ones).

So while you should take retail sales with a pinch of salt as a reflection of overall market share, they are a decent measure of consumer demand in general.

This is actually relatively bad news for Apple and good news for everyone else. Think of it this way -- Dell, MS, and HP basically have all green grass ahead of them in the $1000+ market. While it's a zero growth market for Apple now, it's basically a growth play for everyone else.

The problem for Apple is that the growth is in a market they don't play in, and have little desire to play in. So unless they can get people to want to spend more money on a computer (which I don't think will happen), they need to find how they're going to grow revenue for their PC division. For HP, Dell, and Microsoft, it is obvious.

"they need to find how they're going to grow revenue for their PC division"

Or expand into new markets like smartphones and tablets. AFAIK Apple made more by selling iPhones than high-end Macs last year.

Or they could lower costs to increase profit by buying chip designers and investing in new manufacturing technologies.

1. The US$1000+ market might well offer growth potential for Windows-based machines, but no vendor has found a way to compete effectively with the Apple end-to-end solution.
2. Mac sales continue to grow faster than the market - 30%+ YOY in the US, and 70% YOY in Australia, where I live. The 27" iMac has been a great success and is now the #1 desktop in the US.
3. Apple pursue a premium strategy, focusing on high margins on every product rather than low margins on high volume products. If you are focused on quantity you will misconstrue Apple's intentions - when Apple move into a segment they always do so with a premium product. Compared to a netbook, the iPad, for much the same price, offers a typically Apple premium experience.

In summary: Having 90% of the premium market is not a problem for Apple while Mac sales continue to grow at 30%+ year on year, and this market represents no real opportunity for anyone else - Windows no longer cuts the mustard for the cognoscenti (or the brainwashed if you must) and these buyers are now out of the reach of Dell, HP, Acer, Microsoft et al...

Which is why apple specs vs. price is such a sorry subject. Listening to Apple marketing hype one should think I would be a prime candidate for Apple products. I use a computer for business and the cost of any retail machine, Apple or not, is negligible compared to profit so I get the best. And Apple sadly drops out at the 1st round of comparison every time. In fact I wished they would make ThinkPad T's more expensive and give them the tank-like quality they used to have pre T41 - not that they are bad...

Your post would be more useful if you specified why Apple fails in contention at the first round each time. With 30+ years in IT, most of it in the Windows environment supporting Windows networks, and MCSE and HP ASE certifications I am well qualified to compare Windows and OS-X powered offerings. I made the move to Mac several years ago and now would never seriously consider a windows-based machine whatever the hardware configuration.

A first-round comparison should include:

- flexibility: All Macs offer OS-X, Windows, or a hybrid "Windows apps within OS-X" experience as well as Linux if you must. In short, with a Mac you can run just about every application on your notebook - and this is the only way you can have access to Windows and OS-X apps on the one machine.
- security: No viruses for Mac. I repeat NO VIRUSES FOR MAC. You don't need to run antivirus software on a Mac. You don't suffer the performance hit, or application-installation problems with AV software or the horrendous task of fixing a virus-induced problem which slips through the AV net.
- Operability: OS-X comes from the UI experts - Apple. And it shows. It is faster to use, simpler, and easier. Interoperability with other devices such as cameras, scanners and printers is vastly better than Windows.
- Reliability: Mac users use the apps on their machines - they don't spend much, if any, time in the operating system itself (a-la control panel) fixing problems. One of the real joys of OS-X is discovering, after several months, that your computer rarely crashes and you haven't need to deinstall, reinstall or reconfigure anything...
- The Experience: Premium materials, great design, great software, great support - this is the reason Apple have 90% of the premium market.

In my experience, those who can afford to buy Macs, but persist with Windows, are generally ill-informed. I always recommend a Mac and can think of no reason to recommend Windows except for perhaps the serious gamer - but, even then, that window is closing as more and more developers dive in to the Apple arena.

Sunbeam, if I brought your analysis to my team I'd be laughed out the room.

1) Who cares about flexibility if you're already a Windows or Linux or Mac shop. The only people who care about running OS X are people who own Macs. Almost no enterprise cares.

2) Viruses are so 20th century. They were never a common security issue, but they sound scary. Trojans are far more dangerous and common and do exist in great numbers on the Mac. What's even worse though are phishing expeditions.

3) Windows 7 device stage is better than what is currently in OS X.

4) That's funny, because apps on my Mac go down a lot. AND when the Mac does OS updates, it's like they don't do compat testing, because at least one of my apps totally stops working. Nothing was like the move to Tiger(I think)when SPSS totally broke. SPSS blamed Apple. Apple blamed SPSS. That went on way too long.

5) The Experience -- remember that PCs have 90% of the TOTAL market. And in the enterprise its probably even higher.

And don't get me started on things the enterprise really cares about like access to the Excel OM, or building LOB apps, or great dashboards for our finance reports, etc...

"Who cares about flexibility if you're already a Windows or Linux or Mac shop"

If you are already a Windows, Linux or Mac shop then you never cared about flexibility in the first place.

Enterprises that built LOB applications on top of Office only have themselves to blame if they are locked in and cannot properly evaluate alternate suppliers.

It is even more ironic when they are locked into IE6 and Windows XP. If Microsoft hadn't killed the competition then all apps would be cross platform and their customers could upgrade more easily.

"Enterprises that built LOB applications on top of Office only have themselves to blame if they are locked in and cannot properly evaluate alternate suppliers"

Which ones? MS Office is the most capable solution, period. Everything else is tonka toys.

"If Microsoft hadn't killed the competition then all apps would be cross platform and their customers could upgrade more easily."

The competition is welcome - most Office formats and especiall APIs have been open for many years. The proble is nobody wants to compete, and as far as customers - they could not care less about the lock-in. Microsoft licences are dirt cheap as they are, and everybody is happy.

sunbeamrapier: "Your post would be more useful if you specified why Apple fails in contention at the first round each time."

I would venture to guess it is because of the price/performance ratio.

Devstar, malware really doesn't exist "in great numbers" for the Mac. There are around ten pieces of "in the wild" malware in existence. Of course, that doesn't mean you don't have to take sensible precautions (and I would include running up to date AV software in that personally) but there just isn't the malware problem you're making out.

As to your fourth point, obviously I don't know what apps you're running, but it sounds like you've been unlucky. My experience has been the exact opposite: In 24 years of using Macs, and using OS X since beta, I've found it to be the most robust and problem-free OS I've come across. I'm sorry your experience isn't the same. Perhaps I've been lucky rather than you being unlucky - but extrapolating from a data point of one is always risky business :)

@sunbeam
- flexibility: Not without Parallels, which isn't provided out of the box
- security: No virusues? Are you sure? Are you ABSOLUTELY sure? How about "no in-the-wild viruses?". Check About.com's Mac Virus FAQ since you appear to be ill-informed.
- operatability: Ok, you got me there, Apple does understand the word 'usability' better than the MS camp.
- reliability: Bah, my Macbook has crashed on me far more than my D830 on XP Pro SP3. It happens, crashes are as much end-user fault as it is the OS.
- experience: depends on who builds your computer. I can build my own PC with premium materials, great design, great software, and provide my own great support for significantly less than what it takes to purchase any Apple computer of same spec.

Each experience is different, and every situation is different. I can think several reasons to recommend Windows over OS X:
1) As you said: gaming. Few popular games have crossed over to the OS X front
2) Hardware compatibility: If you want to run an AMD CPU, or use most high-end graphics cards, or choose which RAM you want to use without voiding your warranty, then you cannot use OS X.
3) Initial cost of ownership: As I stated in the 'experience' section, you can build a higher-end system for the same or significantly less money by opting to go with Windows rather than OS X.
4) Enterprise computing: Most enterprises utilize a Windows/Microsoft computing infrastructure. In order to be efficient at your job, you need to be able to effectively use the same equipment your employer uses.

BTW, the Mac Virus FAQ link is here: http://antivirus.about.c...rce/tp/macvirusfaqs.htm

"choose which RAM you want to use without voiding your warranty, then you cannot use OS X"

From the Apple site

"You may install memory (RAM, VRAM), and other customer-installable parts without voiding your Apple warranty."

"Adding memory (DRAM, VRAM) or other user-installable upgrade or expansion products to an Apple computer is not considered a modification to that Apple product. Therefore, it is not necessary to obtain Apple's written permission to upgrade or expand an Apple computer."

http://docs.info.apple.c...ticle.html?artnum=13946

More rumours perpetuated by people that have never owned an Apple product in their lives.

That was a lesser point. Even if it is allowed, you cannot upgrade to a Radeon 5870 as it is not supported by OS X. So while you *can* perform the upgrade, it will actually render your system unusable.

So you recognize that 3.75 out of my 4 reasons to choose Windows over OS X are valid? Not bad, IMO.

And I own an iPhone, a Macbook Pro, and an iMac 27", fyi.

Well, good for Apple. In fact, a friend of mine just got a 27" Mac for cool $2500.

I wouldn't, but that was the choice. Let a thousand flowers bloom!

The 27" iMac is now the #1 selling desktop in the USA. Indeed, many thousands of flowers are blooming :-)

How much does a Foxconn motherboard go for nowadays?

How is "premium-priced" defined? Arbitrarily set at $1000? When hardware prices are decreasing and hardware companies are passing the cost reductions on to their customers in order to remain competitive, is it realistic to fix this price point at $1000?

I'm sure Apple's hardware costs are decreasing as well, but they are NOT passing the savings on to the customers. Why should they when they are able to exercise monopoly control over their segment of the market? What can we as consumers do about that? Not much unless you want to file a class-action anti-trust suit. As for me, I vote with my dollars and refuse to buy their damned over-priced crap.

I don't believe Apple ships stripped down or idiot versions of their system software (OS X, or whatever it's called). They don't have to, because they don't compete on the basis of price.a Windows developer, I wouldn't buy a desktop or laptop that is not considered premium. If I see a PC priced at less than $800-$1,000, I won't buy it because it doesn't have the horsepower to support my current needs, and future-proof the machine as much as possible.

Windows 7 home "premium" is a joke. I need all the features of a business version, so why not go all the way with Windows 7 Ultimate? If vendors shipped their machines with a complete version of Windows 7, that would drive the price point higher. So, if you raise the average PC price by $200 for cost the Windows 7 Ultimate, and lower the bar for "premium" computers from $1000, to $800, then run the numbers again, and I'll bet that Apple's numbers then don't look so rosy.

1. The price of Apple machines continues to fall in line with the market. A new desktop or notebook costs less today, in actual dollars, than its predecessors and has higher specs.
2. You have it wrong. In fact Windows-based machines are underpriced - no vendor makes any money on netbooks, and even without any R&D budget to speak of, Dell finds it hard to make money on anything it sells. Apple refuses to play this game in much the same way that European prestige automobile manufacturers refuse to play in the low-price volume end of the car market. Is a Mercedes E Class Wagon "overpriced crap" compared to a GM or Ford product of similar size and power?
3. Why would a Windows developer buy a Mac anyway? In truth you are stuck with a Windows machine - though you could always run boot-camp or Parallels on a Mac. However I do not recommend this - irreversible dissatisfaction with all things Windows is a natural byproduct of an immersion in all things Apple: you might lose your enthusiasm for your development career...
4. Price comparisons are complex. You need to start with the Mac of your choice and then compare it with Windows machines of similar performance. By the time you configure a Windows machine with similar display, memory and disk (and, if a notebook, weight) the Mac will often work out less expensive. If you add iWork (much cheaper than Office, much nicer to use and will read and write most Office file types) to the equation and you have a use for iWeb, iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie etc then the Apple solution looks sweeter still. Then deduct the cost of an AV package (don't forget the subscription charges either). Resale value? Keep the boxes - your Mac will sell on eBay when you are done with it.

Overall, the Mac makes more sense in the premium end of the market. 90%+ of American consumers agree.

i agree with ya. on top of that, can any computer laptop make compete w/the macbook's touchpad? that huge, awesome multitouch of a beast is well worth the premium over any win laptop.

hell, i had super pimped HP DV6700T w/Bluray and all of the options (cost me well over $1300) and a year later i sold it to buy a macbook pro13 w/o bluray or fingerprint reader. reason?? amazing touchpad. if you've used one of the new glass/multitouch ones, you already know.

no one ever mentions this but to me, this is a major component of the a laptop, what do you every time your use your laptop??? a ****in touchpad/pointer.

and about the ebay, so true. i sold my first gen macbook air for $900 on ebay w/original box/manuals. my $1300 hp? yea, i a mere $700 and it was a superior machine spec wise.

input is still a very key piece of a laptop that most never consider until they got a taste of the super awesome touchpad that macbooks rock.

just my .02..

Umm..I think you have a type: "the Mac will often work out less expensive", should be *rarely* not 'often'. It's highly vendor-dependent. You need to compare using a vendor that targets the same market segment. Comparing a Dell Latitude to a Macbook Pro is equivalent. However, comparing an Alienware M15x/M17x fully decked out that has similar business performance to a Macbook Pro and a Latitude E6500 is not apples to apples.

Macbook Pro 2.53Ghz base package without iWork, no AV, with Office 2008 Student, 4GB RAM, 320GB 7200 RPM HDD, 15" 1440x900 display, NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics, Apple Care warranty - $2,347.95

Latitude E6500, 2.53Ghz base package with 16-month AV, Office 2008 Student, 4GB RAM, 320GB 7200 RPM HDD, 15" 1440x900 display, webcam with microphone, Windows 7 Professional x64, NVIDIA Quadro NVS 160M graphics, 3-year warranty - $1,454.00

I didn't see it on Apple's site, but my Macbook Pro has a webcam w/mic on it, so I figured I'd add it to the Latitude's specs. These are comparable laptops designed for similar market segments, and both very reputable vendors. I didn't insult the Apple camp by trying to compare against a Vostro or an Inspiron. This is about as "apples-to-apples" as you can get, and the Latitude/Windows 7 laptop still runs almost $1000 less than the Macbook Pro.

You cannot compare Dell basic warranty against Apple Care. I chose the top warranty from Dell since you chose the top warranty from Apple.

My Dell came to $1,986 (about $350 less than your Macbook quotation), once I added all the little things like 802.11n and bluetooth.

The Mac uses DDR3 (1066) which is much faster and more expensive than DDR2 (800) which is getting old these days.

Also the Mac claims 7 hours battery life while Dell will only quote figures with 2 extra batteries strapped on. Based on online reviews, the battery life appears to be terrible.

Once you add the extra battery packs the Apple might actually look like a good deal.

ROFL - now you're comparing service? Tell ya' what, scrap both additional warranties/care packages since this is as much speculation as it is personal opinion, then we can get closer to taking about the actual hardware. The DDR3 isn't going to be truly utilized in a laptop environment for the average user anyway, but the cost difference between the two is about $70 difference at 4GB, so let's give you a credit for that. Not sure how you got an additional $500 on the quote by adding 802.11n and Bluetooth, as they are about $50 in total together. So total credit is about $120 on top of my original price - and it still doesn't come close to the Macbook Pro.

My first experience with Mac people occurred at a computer fair in Pomona, CA. My business partner and I were displaying our wares on a PC. This was back in the 80's. About half a dozen Mac enthusiasts walked up to our booth and took it upon themselves to viciously attack us and our product because we only ran on PC's, but not Mac's. I had no idea people got so religious about such things. But, that was my first experience, with many more to come.

I see the difference between Mac people and PC people is that the Mac people want everybody to be Mac users like them, like there's no other choice. The typical PC is not so militant, though they will defend their choice in computing gear. Live and let live. I'm not trying to force you into the PC world, so why try and force me into yours?

I'll give you a comparison of two developers, working in parallel to port a product to Windows Vista. I installed Vista and MS Visual Studio 2005 on my Dell laptop. My co-worker had a brand new Mac laptop, top of the line. I don't know what specific model it was, and frankly I don't care. It was the best Mac laptop you could buy back in 2007. I spent $1100 for my Dell at the same time. He spent about $2300 on his Mac Book. He installed Parallels on it, then installed Vista and MS Visual Studio 2005. I was very impressed for about a week. He could play cool music out of his Mac speakers which sounded much better than the tinny speakers on my Dell.

But, we were doing development, not listening to music. But, the Mac speakers were much better. I'll give you that.

However, after about a week, he kept having software crashes on his Mac, and had to keep asking me to lend him my Vista DVD so he could re-image his partition, reinstall Vista, and my Visual Studio DVD, so he could install it. Before this started happening, I thought I might consider making my next laptop purchase a Mac, and running Windows in parallel, but after this series of episodes, there's no way I would consider it.

After a couple of weeks, he left on vacation, and I finished the project on my Dell.

When this dev cycle was over, I got Vista off my Dell and put XP back on it. Runs like a dream. Then I bought an HP laptop with Vista pre-installed. I was much happier with a native Vista, but when Windows 7 came out, I upgraded all my Vista machines to Windows 7.

Overall, I am happy with my Windows PC's. I like my career, and see no reason to change either the trade or my tools of said trade.

Speaking of used Apple gear. My co-worker was a big Apple enthusiast, and some members of my dev team do work on Apples. We have a couple of unused PowerMac G4 desktops in the storage cabinet. Nobody uses them, but I have to report them on the annual hardware inventory like they were something of value. Our local discount electronics store sells them as-is for $50 apiece. How's that for resale value? The G4's also come with a couple of slick LCD monitors, which I would like to use with my PC's, but they are incompatible with anything else, and I can't find an adapter anywhere, but incompatibility is Apple's game.

"Also the Mac claims 7 hours battery life while Dell will only quote figures with 2 extra batteries strapped on. Based on online reviews, the battery life appears to be terrible."

Each spec has it's own bias. The Macbook Pro *may* get 7 hours after a full deep charge, but it's battery life typically drops much more quickly on subsequent recharges when compared to the battery used in the Latitude series. Both my Macbook Pro and my Latitude D830 are 2 years old and the Macbook Pro only gets about 1 hour of battery, as opposed to the 2 1/2 hours that my Latitude gets. I don't play music on either, do approximately the same work/type of work, have Bluetooth off, Wireless on, approximately the same screen brightness... It's beyond me. I believe I have actually used the Macbook Pro *less*, but still it doesn't hold much juice.

Now, I'm hopeful that a response will come that aides in me retaining more juice on the Macbook - so if you have any ideas, I'm open to trying them so that I can make the most accurate comparison possible.

Anyone who knows anything knows that a good pc must either be build yourself or purchased online. Best besy and walmart pc's just dont cut it. I'm not saying a pc you might own is crap. I am saying that for serious power you cant get it at retail most times. I built my pc, and it runs rings arround the highest end Apple. Retail wise, pc makers have always tried to appeal with price. This is good for the consumer but bad i guess for the statistics. It also helps that aside from maybe a mac mini, apple doesnt even try to sell anything that could be a budget computer. Regarding the ipad, it's not a computer in the normal sense of the word. So regardless of if they are successful or not it's not gonna affect pc sales. The price chart above is meaningless cause how many of the lowend are considered computers, only the mac mini. Sure i have a iphone, and i joke it's a laptop crammed into a phone. But it's not really. Actual pc sales have not declined, or have been affected by iphones and appletv. These items are nice and all, but not computers. Let's try not to write artcles to confuse people, not like many of us could be confused.

"I built my pc, and it runs rings arround the highest end Apple"

The top end Apple has dual quad-core Xeons, 32GB of RAM and 2TB of RAID-5 storage and 4 graphics cards, not to mention the very expensive case.

Please show me your PC specs which beat this and the amount you spent on it. I would like one myself.

the Apple fanboy cant distinguish between a user computer and a server. not surprised at all.

if you want a server, go to any PC manufacturer website and build one with the same specs for half of what Apple is asking for.

as for my PC, it is a :
-i7 940
-2x GTX275 (not Available for mac users)
-1000W PSU Enermax (not offered by Apple)
-6GB corsair Dominator (not offered by Apple)
-raid0 2x WD Velociraptor 250GB (not offered by Apple)

the macPro on Apple's website can omly be customized by NVIDIA GeForce GT ? whatever it is !

so STFU Apple fanboy and make your homework before you post your next time.

The Mac Pro is a workstation not a server.

A single i7 with 6GB of RAM and 250 GB of RAID-0 (LOL)

Dual quad core Xeons + 32GB RAM + 2TB RAID-5.

They are not even in the same ballpark. My guess is that you like to use your computer for playing games.

I have told you guys before, I am a freetard not an Apple fanboi!

What exactly would you use 32GB of RAM for? Now I just may be a ****, but you don't strike me as someone who actually uses even 4GB of RAM. Link me to the Apple with 4 graphics cards. Is this simply to hook a bunch of monitors up to or to do GPGPU because it really serves no purpose for gaming?

There are plenty of uses for 32GB of RAM. Databases, Virtual Machines, Multiple desktops etc etc.

I am currently using 6 of my 8GB. I sometimes start swapping but 8GB was a limit at the time so I just turn things off when I am done with them. I normally have about 50 Firefox tabs open at any one time over 8 desktops but they are not open at the moment. If I reopen them and load a VM or two then I will be over my 8GB limit.

Just look at the Mac Pro site and configure it. Apple says it is for multiple monitors of video walls. People do not buy $15,000 computers for gaming.

I think you may actually be a ****.

Raid0? Have fun with that? Not sure why you think it's not possible to add a dinky RAID0 to a MacPro; of course, no one would ever recommend it -- maybe someone needs to do some homework.

Try doing live editing in FCP or Motion. Editing 1GB+ image files in Photoshop and Illustrator. Running Lightroom on hundreds of RAW images in a live studio setting. Multitasking between any and/or all of these tasks. On and on...

Some people use their computers for work, not just games.

Are you talking about in memory databases? DBs are rarely stored in memory. And in the cases where they are used, we rarely if ever talking about x86s anymore(think SPARC). So I rather doubt you know what you are talking about in this case. In the case of workstations, there's really no reason why you'd be running a huge DB anyway.

Yes, virtual machines waste lots of RAM, but again, there is rarely any reason to be running a virtual machine, let alone running multiple ones at once. Tell, what exactly do you have two virtual machines running at once for?

Multiple desktops should not be wasting hardly anymore RAM as they are simply an organizational method. I.e. instead of having a bunch of apps open on one desktop, you have some in one desktop, some in another, etc. How this would increase your memory usage dramatically is beyond me.

So in essence, you've managed to state one thing(virtual machines) that can cause excessive RAM usage. Something that most users will never ever use. I'm a computer engineer and I very rarely in my work ever encounter a time where I'm using more than 3.5GB of ram and when I do it is strictly during usage of VMs.

What exactly is using 6GB in your setup if you 1) Don't have 50 firefox tabs open and 2) don't have any VMs running? Give a listing, please do. Is it simply that your OS is reserving the RAM for use because you have so much? You are run linux right, so you should be able to give a listing then. I'd love to know since linux is notoriously light(excluding Ubuntu).

TF123: Very good post. These are very useful reasons to have 32GB of RAM. Sounds like something that the mac pro was actually made for. :-)

You are mentally challenged! I would put my life on the line that your IQ is 100 or less. You are stupid! Please stop dumbing the rest of us down with your stupidity!

Get the spy/malware off your computer and you might use 1/3 of that. retard!

My databases use memory mapped files for holding data so they like as much memory as possible. I have 5 databases for testing and development that are all >1GB. RAM is cheap and running out of it is very expensive in terms of my productivity.

I didn't say I didn't have any VMs running now. I have given 2GB to one running VM.

The desktops all have their own desktop backgrounds and activities, widgets etc. Bling uses memory.

Then I have a few Konsole terminals with lots of tabs, 2 IDEs (one java - it loves RAM), about 3 other browsers (chrome, chromuim, opera, konqueror) - each with about 10 tabs, lots of large PDF files for API documentation. 5-6 file browsers, email, RSS reader, VNC viewer, Skype, IM, ICQ.

6 GB is my standing usage (after a power cut), when I have 3-4 VMs up then my usage is more like 12GB. How else can you test clusters if you do not have multiple virtual machines? Even IE browser testing takes 3 VMs alone.

I never claimed most users do what I do, but I don't play games all day long.

MY Case - ZALMAN Z-MACHINE GT1000-B
Striker 2 Formula mobo
Intel E8400 CPU (OC'd to 3.825mhz on air idles at 32c)
X-fi Extrememusic and 200 watt Altec Lansing 5.1 THX speakers
30inch Dell Monitor and 24inch Dell Monitor
G.SKILL 8gigs ram
PC Power & Cooling 750W PSU
Mvidia GTX 295 Video Card(even 4x NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB that apple offers will choke against my card)
I have 10 hard drives total space 9.5 terabytes I have no need for Raid of any kind yet my system does support it.

Quad core is nice, and two of them even better. Problem is it doesnt matter much in the real world. Sure some apps will see a increase in speed. but many will not. I am not locked into a limited set of parts i can only buy from apple. A top of the line apple pc might be faster then mine in a few benchmarks. But I have the total package. CPU+RAM+Video. My GTX 295 video card sure comes in handy when i am playing Mass effect 2 or Dirt 2. Games i dont think you can even get for a apple pc. If you need 8 cores to run photoshop you have lost you mind. A Mac Pro with all the trimmings minus added hard drives and other crap one wouldnt need just to prove performance only would cost 10769.00 plus tax. And thats with no monitor mind you.

You can't argue the point of power when all arround power is not even a option for apple. Graphics power is vital nowadays for high end. I like apple, believe me i do. But there is a limiting factor to owning a apple pc. The debate over the limiting factor of the ipad is much the same. Apple doesnt compete in the total spectrum of the market. They do what they do very well. That said I am buying a mac mini tomarrow to get my feet wet on the apple idea. Fact is I am a PC guy and will always be. For my main computer i refuse to be locked into what apple wants me to want. I like the iPad and will buy that also. Not cause i think it's the 2nd coming. I dont care it doesnt have USB or other things people have complained about. It will serve me great for what i plan on useing it for. But a windows based pc is where it's at when it comes to power and options.

What the heck, 50 firfox tabs? What on earth do you do with that. Tell me it's for work or something. Cause thats just insane. And 8 desktops. Explain what the heck you are doing over there. Do you work for NASA, or are you onboard the starship enterprise?

It is insane for a Windows desktop. For me it just means that I can get work done.

For anyone working with 3D rendering or manipulating RAW graphics files then the money spent on a Mac Pro is well worth it.

I think we can all agree that a Mac Pro does not make a good gaming machine, and that none of you have a machine that even approaches the raw power of a fully-loaded Mac Pro.

When you get your Mac Mini, take it apart and see what it is like inside, I guarantee you will have a new respect for Apple engineers and Apple machines in general. It is a really well designed and built PC, and since you are a PC guy you should appreciate it.

P.S. You paid $374 for THAT case and you say that Macs are expensive?

http://www.newegg.com/Pr...px?Item=N82E16811235005

They must see gamers coming a mile away. The case cost a large percentage of a Mac Mini. That's just insane. It doesn't even have a separate PSU section. If you ever get the chance, look inside a Mac Pro to see what a high-end case really looks like.

I paid good money for a quiet Antec case and that only cost roughly $140.

I'll give you email, RSS reader, skype, IM, ICQ.

However:

Let me get this straight:

-bunch of terminal windows
-5 DB's of 1GB each
-2 IDEs
-3 browsers w/ 10 tabs each
-6 file browser windows
-a vnc connection
-tons of PDFs for documentation
-4 VMs

I'm calling BS on this. You are not using all of that stuff at once. You simply don't close anything you aren't using anymore. Probably a side affect of multiple desktops and forgetting what you have open. I assume you are a web developer if you are using multiple browsers at once otherwise I see no reason for it.

In addition to all of that stuff you are also simulating clusters of machines. At first I thought you were talking about testing something like MPI, but your simulated cluster usage is even more inane evidently. Three VMs for IE browser testing? How do you figure?

I think I'm starting to get the picture here. You test the performance of concurrent accesses to your website that retrieves massive amounts of data from your 5 backend DBs(to the point that paging them in and out of memory when needed is actually noticable)... you use 3 browsers with 10 windows each that access your website and many VMs running other OS's to also access your website at the same time. In addition to that, you use two monitors each with an IDE and develop programs while all that other crap is running in the background. You also throw in a bunch of console windows that run emac, vim, and lynx, because despite the IDEs and file browsers, and web browsers, you still need to do lots of things on the command line. Hey, you probably need to compile 10 programs at once using gcc.

Do you have any idea how absurd your post sounds? It's rather laughable. I mean If you aren't lying about all of this give some *plausible* details about why you need all of this stuff running, what exactly you are doing with all of it. Otherwise, I think everyone will just have to assume you made it up.

It may sound absurd to you if you just play games.

Let me explain the easiest things, and hopefully you can work out the rest in a few years.

IE 6, 7 and 8 do not live well on the same machine at all. Even Microsoft recommend you set up multiple VMs for testing.

The rest is explained by multiple projects. I do not want to get am email / phone call and have to set up an entire environment just to fix a minor problem. Everything is always ready to go, with a live and test environment.

Multiple terminals would be for database, shell, database 2 and maybe another to monitor the system, sometimes another one at a root shell. Each machine can require 4 terminals to work on.

Not only can I have projects always ready to work on, even a reboot restores my environment when I start up again.

Time is money and I have more money than time.

Alright lets go point by point:

"Let me explain the easiest things, and hopefully you can work out the rest in a few years."

I'll address this last.

"IE 6, 7, and 8 do not live well on the same machine"

You don't need to be running these concurrently. For fast startup, you save the running state of the VM. Bam! No need to waste GB of ram on absurd VM usage! Or if you really like to have them running at once, you can install XP on each VM with different versions of IE and specify 128MB to 256MB of ram for each VM and you've gotten yourself down to less than 1GB for three VMs at once. There's really no reason to use excessive resources here.

"multiple projects"

Again, these don't need to be running all the time. If you get an email or phone call, and need them you load them up. I don't really know what you could be referring to with the multiple projects except the IDEs so even with two open, it's not a high use of rams. What would this save, 30 seconds to load a project?

"Multiple terminals for database, shell..."

This doesn't really explain anything. You say you have a terminals for your DBs. So are you doing mysql queries on command line? If so, entire DBs do not need to be in memory. In fact, it's questionable even in places with thousands of users whether there is really a benefit to having IMDBs in the first place (the reason for this is that the bottleneck is not the disk, but the line between the user and the computer itself). What are you monitoring on your system? I suppose you are saying that each of your VMs is now running 4 terminals and DBs and IE. Well then that should already be taken into account via the reserved RAM for each VM that is running so it's irrelevant.

The only thing you've managed to convey about your computer usage in this post is that you run lots of VMs and they are what are wasting your ram. To be honest the only thing you've mentioned throughout that does waste lots of ram is your supposed DBs of 1GB each and VMs. The rest of the stuff wouldn't waste 4GB all together(even with the 50 browser windows). So ignoring everything else, what are your DBs doing and your VMs doing besides being used for some simple web browser compatibility testing? My moneys on that your some kind of web developer considering your responses thus far. And if you are... you really really don't need that much ram.

Now, I'll address your comment about explaining the "easiest things". You see, you haven't actually explained your huge memory footprint yet. You attempted to chalk it off as the need to run IE in 3 VMs at once, but as I've already explained, that is just kind of stupid for the reasons above.

So the important questions still are:
-What are your 5 1GB DBs for?
-What are your VMs for besides IE testing to the point that they need to be run concurrently with lots of RAM.

IFF you were using this much RAM legitimately it should have been/should be easy to explain down to which programs are using what resources. I.e. VMs are using X amount, my DBs are using Y amount and are for this, this, and this, and my browser is using Z amount... The fact that you tried to shrug your usage off with vague claims about everything suggests that you are lying.

therealbillybob

My Case yes did cost me alot. But it's built like a tank. One massive piece of Aluminum. Which cools fantastic. When it comes to expansion room and cooling it is king. Sure it cost me alot. But i plan on useing this case for at least 10 years or more. All i need to do is swap the motherboard. My video card was over 500, so i dont think 374 is alot for the case that holds all my stuff. If you read the reviews on newegg, most all agree with me. One case that will last forever. I will never need another.

I've seen the inside of a mini. not that special. Basically laptop parts, lets be honest. I am sure i will like it but fact is i just wanna get a affordable mac to play with.

Well let's just accept that my high use of rams is a mystery to you.

You are obviously inside some sort of Jobsian reality distortion field, nobody would pay >350 for a case when they can get one that costs about $30 which does the SAME THING.

Mac Pro configured as you stated with 32GB RAM, 2TB in RAID5, and Dual Xeons @ 2.93Ghz "Nehalem" with 3x Geforce GT 120 (which are really pretty crappy, but you asked for it), and a 24" display - $13,098.00

Custom PC:
ASUS Z8PE-D12 motherboard, 2x Xeon 5570 2.93Ghz Nehalems, 36GB of RAM (+4GB than Mac, Crucial - not some off brand), 2TB in RAID5, 2x Radeon 5870 (more costly than 3x GT120s, and will blow away 3x GT 120's in EVERYTHING), Logitech illumated keyboard and G9x mouse, 24" HP 2475w display, Cooler Master RC 690 case, Athena 1100W server power supply - $6,732.31

Wow...with that money I'd save, I could build 2 of the custom computers for the similarly-configured Mac Pro!

Just to make it completely fair, thrown in an extra $200 for Windows 7 x64.

Most people that spend that much have either:
a) Too much disposable income and are just trying to be trendy (don't deny it)
b) Have a profession that demands this sort of multitasking (which could very well be your case).

However, don't you find it appalling to spend so much when you could spend far less, have the same 'footprint', and have at least as much computing power? I would easily switch over to Apple if they would simply bring their prices more in line with the mainstream market. I'm a techy, and don't really have a need to pay for support - so the 'experience' that I get from Apple Care really isn't worth anything to me. Granted, I do like Apple aesthetics, but in the end, the function provided is the same as a custom rig that I could build for approximately 1/2 the cost.

Maybe it's just me (or any other true computer builder), but I just cannot rationalize the cost when of a Mac when I can perform all of my own maintenance. Both are 64-bit platforms (at least, that I use), and both work flawlessly.

@therealbillybob: Just for a serious question: for a user such as myself, understanding that the stability of any system is proportionate to the care taken when designing and maintaining said system, under what circumstances would you recommend to someone such as myself to spend twice the money for hardware that is technologically inferior?

ill keep this article as an example of American media Bull-s***.

it got all ingredients : a deceiving headline, bias, fanboiism, ridiculous arguments and twisted numbers.

most computer users build their expensive computers, i have a custom $1500 rig that can destroy any Mac in speed, i bought it part by part so i dont think you numbers cover that? do they?

Show me your $1500 machine that can beat the top end Mac described above. That machine goes for around $20,000 so I really am interested in how you built something that can beat it for 10% of the price.

no, i cant.
if your brain cant distinguish between a server and a user computer, than you will not understand.

The Mac described above is the Mac Pro not the XServe. The Mac Pro is their workstation line and the XServe is their server line.

The XServe goes to 48GB and can have an SSD added as well.

Does this make it easier for you to understand?

You also forget that you actually listed the specs above (then refuse to here), are you having trouble understanding things? They are not impressive stats, even for a 1 year old machine.

If you want to do more than just play games, then your machine is laughable.

no it does not, it only makes you look more retarded.

even if you burn trying to find an escape you wont. switching subjects and unnecessary LoLs wont help neither.

impressive or not, My PC is better than any Mac Pro, because i have access to a multitude of hardware that a Mac will only dream of. none of the hardware i listed is available for your iCrap pro. and also because i bought it with half the price Apple is asking you to pay for a macPro with lower end hardware.

Apple corp decides for you what you should use while i decide what is good for me and there is indeed a BIG difference...

a simple Dell PowerEdge goes up to 198MB . so again Apple fanboy, you should probably STFU , read more and post less.

and if you want real server, Apple 48MB is quite unsatisfying.

Samiup: billybob is right here. The newest xeons are the same architecture as i7s. They are just meant for high end workstations(more quality control, lower temp, etc). In essence, this means that the majority of people with computers have no reason to use it as they will get no benefit.

How many times do I have to tell you, I don't own an iCrap Pro. I am a freetard that built my own machine and put Linux on it. I still would not claim that my machine is better than the top end Apple.

I own a Mac Mini and an iPhone, they are both wonders of engineering but I am still a freetard.

I am fairly sure you are confusing MB ad GB. You are not EFL so I can probably understand a bit of confusion.

@samiup - he's right about the MB/GB.

@therealbillybob - I won't bother trying to compare a Q9650 vs. 2x Nehalem Xeons, it's just absurd. However, it can easily best the i5 Mac Pros.

My screen name says it all. This is one of the most idiotic articles I have ever read.

"My screen name says it all."

Genetic problems? The family tree looks more like a bowl of spaghetti?

Seeing as you made about 15 of the comments here, all of your comments are dated today, all are poorly written, and none contain anything worth reading, I shall also ignore the above comment as it is nothing more than a personal attack. Have you counted your thumbs down today?

"I shall also ignore the above comment as it is nothing more than a personal attack."

Except you didn't ignore it, well done.

Stupid article.

First, I would like to know what % of PC's and Mac's respectively are bought at retail outlets. I think you will find most Mac's are purchased from a retail store (ie $$$$$$) as opposed to a good deal on a PC online. You have one option with Apple - APPLE! PC's you can buy from myriads of vendors - granted, this is part of the frustration in getting devices/software to work properly 100% of the time but look at the price point.

Second, look at price for performance as well and let me know what you come up with. Build a comparable (in spec) PC and Mac and then compare those to market share/sales.

And if you haven't any of these numbers prepared, you are ill prepared to write any article much less this one. Basic journalism skills would be a bit much to ask for I guess.

Seriously, this is a BETA story and obviously a BETA writer unless of course it was intended to evoke the first reaction it did with me - LAUGHED MY BUTT OFF. As a humor piece, this may be up their with the reviews touting the iPad's AWESOMENESS!

Why are PC people so stupid? The article clearly states:

"Nine out of 10 premium PCs purchased from US retail brick-and-mortar stores or online sites (including major chains and Apple Store) during fourth quarter was a Mac."

I run the IT dept of my company. I've made the current company policy for employees that bring their own Mac laptops to work: "You claim Mac is superior?!? Great! Figure out your problems yourself then!!!"
Only a couple guys had Macs anyway, but they had so many problems and since I refused to help, they had to breakdown and buy Windows Laptops. One guy gave his Mac to his kid! Kid was happy and I was happy since no more Mac krap in the office.
I love my policy and love when guys try to challange it! So far Mac is the big loser in our company. I guess it will remain this way until people can figure out things on their own.

Very passive aggressive, I bet your users love you.

"I guess it will remain this way until people can figure out things on their own."

Or until you can figure out basic Mac administration. It is supposed to be your job isn't it?

Or you get fired and replaced with someone who can work with any technology rather than the one he has a certification in. Or someone who has an interest in the business rather than protecting his own job.

Well billybob, in most corporate IT the hardware and software policies are standardized and enforced by SLA agreements and for good reasons. Consistency, accountability, compatibility, and reliability. A corporation uses industry standardized processes and toolchains. So if user A brings his fiery spinning ombooboo desktop issue to the IT guy, and he and can't figure out why it hard locks (because we all know it's compiz) and why he can't run smooth flash tear-free flash streaming videos, is this supposed to be the IT guy's responsibility?

When the Mac vs PC ads were in full fervor we did a full blown Mac eval. We brought in 8 Macs of various flavors and distributed to Mac knowledgable people. After two weeks, we had to take away their XP machines to force them to use the Mac. After another two weeks, 3 of the 8 retunred their Macs citing inability to get work done and spent too much time figuring things out. The eval was a HUGE failure not because of training issues but because of costs and holes in Apple's deployment strategy and tools. The TCO was outrageous. To support these in a corp environment we would have to spend lots of cash buying tools for deployment, security, patching, on and on and on. BTW, of the 8 evals, 3 are sitting in my asset room because they were broken and I had to buy them. :-(

My point is, I did the Mac eval the right way instead of telling people to fix it themselves. We haven't heard much from the Mac people since then. In fact, some of them are volunteering for the Win 7 pilot which is going very smoothly.

If the corporate policy is no Macs then why does the OP even allow the Mac on the network? Instead he lets it on the network but then laughs at users when they want to configure something rather than trying to help them. Over here we call that sort of person a jobsworth and nobody likes them.

There is obviously no SLA or policy in place if the flying disgrace decides the policy himself based on his own likes and dislikes.

My guess is that he runs a department of no more than 10 people. There is certainly no accountability there. Other than the ace being accountable and responsible for misery in the workforce.

Nice jab at Compiz. You are starting to understand that I am a freetard and are targeting well. I hate being called a Apple fanboi. Next time mention drivers or something, I yearn for the good old days.

In fact you will find that more enlightened IT managers discover that Macs require a great deal less support than Windows machines. In large networks the cost-savings can be considerable. As an MCSE supporting my own and my customers' windows environments, I integrated several Macs into our own multi-server network without problems. As expected, the Apple users disappeared from view in support terms - it was the Windows machines that continued to fall over with various problems related to viruses, drivers or other issues created by the software update process.

A Mac running Office for Mac and Parallels for any specific windows business apps will integrate easily into a Windows network for security and file/print sharing. Once you set up the user you are unlikely to hear from them. Replace all your windows desktops with Macs and, once the users settle in, the support phone will stop and you can get on with productive work...

"citing inability to get work done". A failed rollout is a failed rollout. It sounds to me like you didn't spend any time in the planning. What were the problems which led to "an inability to get work done"? Not Apple-specific problems I will warrant - more likely issues related to the network itself.

You don't say how large your network is, so its difficult to understand what tools you think would be necessary to roll out Macs properly:

Security is a non-brainer - Macs don't get viruses, play well in a windows network, have strong encryption tools etc etc.

Deployment: Are you talking about remote-installing corporate apps or even Mac OS/X?

Patching: What are you patching here?

How did you end up with three "broken" Macs? Are these the three machines that were returned? What of the 5 that were not returned? Are they still deployed?

It sounds to me like a not-very-well-planned rollout. I suspect the failure of the Mac deployment owes more to the lack of foresight and planning than to the Apple solution itself...

Keep up the good work flyinace!

What those figures show is PC users are smart and realize they don't need to spend a lot of money on a computer. Mac users think their getting something better but in reality their not. They just believe Apple's BS and empty their wallets. Don't tell me Mac's are easier,better, more secure or any of that other crap you want to believe. If they were so much better they would have dominated the market long before now. Nothing that good would go ignored. The only real market for Apple Mac's is the US. Less than 4% in the rest of the world. That says volumes about how gullible US buyers are.

"Don't tell me Mac's are easier,better, more secure or any of that other crap you want to believe."

I can tell that is not something you do not want to hear.

Marketshare means nothing. Market cap is the real measure of the success of a company.

Apple = $175 billion
Microsoft = $252 billion

Apple is 70% of the size of Microsoft and growing. Microsoft seems to have stagnated for the Ballmer years.

Your market share figures are wrong. 58% of Apple's revenues now come from international markets. In Australia Mac sales are up 70% over last year - worldwide they are up over 30%.

The Mac is aimed at the consumer marketplace, which Apple now dominates. Apple do not target commercial PC buyers - which is where the bulk of PCs are sold.

Macs are everything you say: Easier, better, more secure... With 30+ years in IT, most of it supporting Windows networks, I know.

And Mac users do believe they are getting something better. Funnily enough, they are so satisfied with the experience (Apple has satisfaction ratings of 80%+ - way higher than any other player in this market) that you rarely hear of anyone moving back the other way.

Perhaps you should find out why this is so, instead of firing barbs at those who have taken the trouble to actually compare what Apple has to offer...

It's odd - when flyinace cited a failed rollout you were quick to point blame at him for not properly setting up the environment to try and make a successful rollout (believe it or not - I agree with you), but yet you simply throw out the 'Mac is more secure' notion. Security of a device is solely dependent upon the user's ability to configure their computer properly. Part of this is experience, part is skill, and part can be luck. My Macbook Pro has crashed several times for various reasons and has given me numerous problems - whereas my Latitude D830 has given me practically none. All of the problems I encountered on the Macbook caused me at least 4x the amount of time to resolve (even resolving eventually at one point to reload Snow Leopard) than any problem I've encountered on my Latitude D830. Now, without any further information about my knowledge/skill-set, can you adequately judge my level of expertise with both devices? Am I an OS X idiot? Hmmm, can't really tell, can you?

As for your statement concerning "And Mac users do believe they are getting something better" - it's called 'rationalization'. It's what you do when you opt to make a purchase, especially when you willfully choose to purchase a more expensive item over one of similar function with a smaller pricetag.

I guess I am the 1 out 10 who bought a premium machine that wasn't a Mac. I bought a Dell M6400 Covet mobile workstation. Danggggg this thing is awesome but the power supply brick is MASSIVE. I'd be interested to see the what the Win7 Experience Index looks like on a similarly priced Mac to compare the numbers I get on my Covet.

my lower end macbook pro 13 runs a 5.9 rating in windows 7 ultimate via bootcamp. what does your m6400 show?

here are my ratings. I'm waiting on a firmware update from Samsung that should speed up the primary disk. Ever waiting...

CPU 7.2
RAM 7.2
Graphics: 6.8
Gaming Graphics: 6.8
Primary Disk: 7.0

All you are really saying Joe, is Mac's are overpriced!!!!! Common Joe, how about an article that has something to do with 'Beta News' and not some brain numbing support of Apple.

The Windows/PC folks have difficulty with the fact that Apple's stuff is simpler to use and 99% of the time just works. You pay for this, save in time. Once our household moved to Macs, my home "IT" support time was cut to almost nothing! My productivity for our small business increased dramatically. At my full time job I use a PC and still wrestle with the things that are part of the PC world and take time (20 minutes today for security updates and a reboot). Anyways, Apple has a great market strategy, is making much money and continues to strengthen their position while other PC makes and Microsoft struggle. You cannot deny the success Apple is attaining even when the economy was "down". The iPad fulfills what most average users at home do - surf, email, FB, Twitter, write the occasional doc/letter, pictures and videos - not to mention all the apps that are and will be available. The average user does not need or want to deal with all the detail underneath all of the normal computer stuff.

Lets compaire the right things, $10 bucks says your office at work is running windows XP a ten year old OS that is two OSs behind the current gen. So do you think you would have less problems running a mac with os 8 on it? No i dont think so! and as for the IPAD what a joke! A $200 Net book running Linux or even windows 7 has more functionality than the oversized Ipod touch! one word FLASH! the reason Apple doesnt want flash is so you can buy Overpriced flash apps for $5 bucks a pop!

1. Two versions ago of OS-X would be OS-X Tiger. This will run without problem in a windows network - I have installed several Tiger- (even Panther-) equipped Macs in a Windows 2003 network without issue.
2. A $200 netbook might be able to do more things, but how well does it do the things which the user really wants to do? And how fast? The iPad is designed to do the things that users in this price range want to do - in an elegant, lightweight, fast and functional package. Surf the web, check your mail, show your pics, play your music...

We'll see if people still want to buy a netbook for the same price as an iPad. Apple is betting that a large proportion of them will choose the iPad - if only 10% of netbook customers drift to the iPad that is still a HUGE new market for Apple.

Second-guessing the most successful technology company in living memory is a dangerous path. $10 bucks says you are wrong and Steve Jobs is right. I wonder what odds we would get for that wager :-)

By the way, Apple does not support Flash on the iPhone or iPad because it is resource-hungry, buggy and crashes Apple devices. Flash is already being superseded by new HTML standards which means Flash will disappear altogether within the next few years. You can't buy overpriced Flash apps for the iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad - you can't run Flash apps on these products...

i won't be surprised if alienware can claim that they sell 9 out of 10 PCs priced 5k and above as well.
Everyone can pick the range that makes them look best. That's how marketing works.

I would.

Mac Pros sell for over $5000 and they are very popular amongst professionals that need real power and are not afraid to spend money on proper hardware. The most expensive Alienware only has 1 processor, but a Mac Pro has 2 as standard.

The Mac is clearly more open because they let you install another processor, whereas Dell force you to only use one processor in their boxes.

Why would a professional choose Alienware over a Mac Pro? I can see why a 15 year-old would prefer one but they do not normally have as much buying power as giant multimedia companies.

That's weird. Cause I am a professional and I bought 36GHz worth of processing power and 48GB of RAM for about $5K from Dell. And the machines had TWO processors inside them. So what does Dell force you to do extactly? You do know they have multiple product lines? Some of them even cater to professional needs. Seriously. Way to compare apples to oranges. Best of luck next time.

Please provide a link to the machine you bought so that we can compare apples to apples. The best price I could get was over $11,000 for a 48GB machine. The RAM option alone costs $5,000 on a Precision T7500.

My quick pricing on a Mac Pro vs a Precision T7500 puts the Apple at $12,499 and the Dell at $13,638. The Mac had less RAM but more hard drive space. I could not compare graphics easily so I chose the most expensive Apple option and the cheapest Dell one.

The original poster was referring to Alienware though which is really just a brand for gamers. They do not offer machines anywhere near that power so I agree they should not be compared. If Alienware really did sell 90% of >$5000 PCs then I would be very surprised.

You missed the OPs point billybob. It had nothing to do with Alienware attempting to compete with highend professional macs. You compared them yourself not the OP. You just built yourself a straw man and blew it over.

The OP claimed that he would not be surprised if Alienware sold 9/10 of >$5000 PCs.

If >$5000 PCs is not competing with high-end Macs then what is? Macs must take more than 10% of all >$5000 PCs so I would be really surprised if Alienware outsold them.

Or maybe the OP meant that Alienware sell 9/10 >$5000 PCs running Windows designed for gaming. Even if he meant that, then I would be suspicious. There are plenty of suppliers of $5000 PCs.

If I am wrong and it has nothing to do with Macs then who is selling the other 10% of high end computers?

Billy: The point of the OP was that groups can simply pick whatever range they want to look good. The OP was simply using an example case. The OP wasn't trying to do a versus round of who is better at the 5K range.

Honestly this is absurd, you don't know who is taking what at $5000 because there aren't any statistics on it so who cares? You can argue whatever you want, but it's an argument not based on facts. Stop being so obsessive about Macs and chill out.

My point exactly... It was a terrible example. Maybe you can come up with a better one? For a start Apple didn't come up with the ">$1000 category", NPD did. So how is Apple picking this range to look good? Unless you think NPD is doing Apple's marketing for them?

Check the headline, it's all about Apple these days. Joe ignores Linux so I can't go on about that too much.

Please don't shoehorn what I said and say it is your argument.

Yes, the example was bad(especially considering that Alienware doesn't offer computers in that range), but you got the point didn't you?

As for how apple is picking ranges, that wasn't part of anyones original argument; however, your sentiments are valid because Apple is not picking ranges here. Which inturn does indeed render the OPs point moot.

Apple don't pick any range or use this statistic in any of their marketing. The importance of this statistic is that the PC vendors make almost nothing on each unit sold at the low end of the market. In the old days they made their money selling high spec desktops and notebooks. Now, however, Apple has cornered this market and the vendors have lost their most profitable market segment.

Apple sells a fraction of the quantity of machines that Dell do - but makes more money doing so.

Thats how marketing works :-)

well...can't say i'm not surprised.
this is as obvious as saying 9 out of 10 cars sold for more than 500k was a ferrari (or some other luxury auto brand)

If 9/10 cars over $500,000 sold were Ferrari then it would be big news, there are many competitors in that price range. Just like with >$1000 computers, there are lots of competitors in the market but one supplier has an disproportionate share.

Sorry, Joe....but that says nothing really. Fact is that Windows runs 96% of the WORLD'S computers. And check out this timely link for more perspective --->

http://www.bloomberg.com...aajIjMcEp.E4&pos=15

And Win 7 ROCKS!!

Microsoft won the battle on the desktop but they are nowhere in new technology such as smartphones, embedded devices and tablet PCs. They have had the opportunity in all of those markets for 10 years but they blew it because Bill Gates believed that all computing devices should replicate Windows and should run all Windows software.

You guys are still living in 2001 where all the innovation was in desktop apps, these days the it is all about web connected devices.

If you are going to spend $1200 on a PC then the question "Why don't I just get a Mac?" will always pop up. Obviously people who have that much money to spend want something more than glowing lights and plastic.

Apple hardware is even based on open hardware standards, so you can run Windows on your high quality computer if you really want. For many people this seals the deal because they still have an escape route from OSX if they don't like it or they need some Windows software.

@firewired The article you linked to says "Windows runs more than 90 percent of the world’s personal computers" -- not 96 percent. Microsoft has volume. But Apple has gained market share, too, and that's territory Microsoft had but lost. I agree: Windows 7 rocks.

"If you are going to spend $1200 on a PC then the question "Why don't I just get a Mac?" will always pop up. Obviously people who have that much money to spend want something more than glowing lights and plastic."

I think the question really should be "Why am not getting the best for my money?" If I'm buying something regardless of price, I want the best possible specs for the lowest possible price. So If I set my dollar amount, I'm going to find the best thing at that price. I'm willing to bet without researching this that at Mac will not be the best possible specs at that range. I don't ever consider software. I'll neglect to say why.

Great post. One correction though: Microsoft won the corporate desktop market - they have been losing marketshare to Apple in the consumer market for some time now, and at the high end as we have already discussed, Apple owns 90% of the US market for those products which make the manufacturer a reasonable profit.

Just admit that you are mentally challenged, paid by Apple, or retarded. Just stop posting on BN. You are one of the worst writers I have ever seen. Get a life loser!

For most people a PC is not a list of specs.

For most people they get a computer to perform a task and they will pay more for something that achieves that task more easily, some of it is fashion too, people like nice things around them which make them feel good.

The best does not equal the most specs, businesses never understood this which is why they got locked into Microsoft software that ticked all the boxes at the time. Windows NT advertised POSIX compatibility for a while only because it was one of those tick boxes, but POSIX never worked properly on Windows.

Yes, cause most apples are 1000+ units wheras the common user can go to BB, Staples, OM, Sams Club.... where ever and pick up a dell, hp.... whatever for 900.00 or way less (for a desktop) that will suit most anyones needs. Dont get me wrong, the apple products look slick and work well, but I don't see the attraction of spending more money for the same practical use. A computer is a toy or a tool (toy for some tool for others). The Apple following seems like a status symbol crowd vice a user driven need that the apple product is better in some way. Everyone has their "status symbol" of choice amongst their peers, be it a car, phone, house, clothes or computers. I have used Macs at work and really find no appreciable difference in any function vice a decent HP pc, given that that they both have a comparable software suite.

9 out of 10 overpriced computers were mac

Aside of MichaelM01 comment, which is in itself quite clear, how come can you say several times that "iPad = PC" when it does not have PC hardware nor does it have a PC OS (and, by extension does not have PC applications). It is a device, not a computer.

And putting the iPhone in the 99$ and 199$ is like saying Nokia has many free phones. The Telco company at first, and the user, during the contract's life pay what's not in the price, as you surely know.

Baker's sentence about Apple's growth is of the few of real value in this article.

@_jaz_ PC=personal computer. A Mac is a personal computer, too, and it runs an Intel processor and same kind of memory and storage as Wintel PCs. For my story I use Windows PC and Mac to differentiate.

"iPad = PC" when it does not have PC hardware nor does it have a PC OS (and, by extension does not have PC applications)"

The name "computer" comes from the root term, "compute" -- to calculate or reckon. The iPad runs spreadsheets and all sorts of high end scientific calculators, so it is undoubtable a "Computer". It's form factor and multi-touch UI makes it, perhaps, the most personal of personal computers. And by the way, the OS on the iPad is a lightweight version of Apple's OS X that runs on Macintosh, and built upon UNIX. It is hard hard to say that the iPad does not run a PC OS. If you mean that it does not have the typical desktop and file system we've come to know over the past 25 years, you are right. The iPad is presenting a paradigm change in PCs, where the file system is hidden, ostensible to make remove a level of complexity. Obviously it is not designed to replace a desktop or laptop. It is meant to provide a simpler and more relaxed user experience for a huge segment of what people now do with computers: social and recreational involvement, with capability of handling light productivity tasks while mobile. I think the iPad is computer that will not feel like a computer. And I think there will be a lot of people that will find what it offers quite appealing. Time will tell.

Spark - You are correct. I believe the OP is confusing functionality and flexibility. The iPad is simply Apple's response to netbooks, tablet computing, and ebook readers. It's quite a good first attempt, but falls miserably when compared to pure ebook readers. However, it does things that most ebook readers can only dream of. One man's trash...

Isn't this a bit like saying 10 out of every 10 Macs sold was a Mac?

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17504/1/

The dark satanic rumour mill claims that Apple has stopped its assembly lines producing its faulty 27-inch Core i5 and i7 iMacs and issued a firmware patch which is supposed to fix problems in graphics.

Despite managing to get over the top reviews from its tame press in the US the new flagship iMacs have had problems with cracked screens and graphics problems. Apple issued a firmware patch today which is supposed to fix the problem however it might be Jobs' Mob's last attempt to get a cheap fix. If it fails then it might have the huge embarrassment of making a product recall.

They won't do a recall, they will just tell everyone to buy an upgrade for three times it's worth.