Mac vs. PC costs

[Tom Metro]

Jarod Wilson wrote:
> A unibody aluminum MacBook Pro with an LED backlit screen is NOT
> comparable to some random PC laptop with a flimsy, fugly plastic case
> and a non-LED screen.

Agreed, and that's why I said "approximate" equivalent. Aside from these 
features you mention, for which you may or may not be able to find an 
equivalent on the PC side, I've noticed the Macs also tend to have CPU 
speeds that don't exactly match up with anything available on the PC side.

Obviously the important question is whether any of these Mac-specific 
features matter to you. If they do, then that says you need a Mac, 
otherwise you go for the functionality that is relevant to your 
practical needs.


Richard Pieri wrote:
> Tom Metro wrote:
>> Care to share some numbers?
> 
> A new 17" MBP, 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 500GB disk: about $2500.
> 
> A new Dell Precision M6400, 17", 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo (closest match),  
> 320GB disk (largest available): about $2500.

One of the things that makes the PC vs. Mac comparison less 
apples-to-apples is that there is a limited selection of Macs, so if you 
need the RAM, disk, and display, but don't have a justifications for a 
2.93 GHz CPU (which is obviously way outside the "sweet spot" for cost 
effective), then you may find the Mac comparatively overpriced.

A search on NewEgg doesn't even show any models with a 2.93 GHz CPU, yet 
they have two 2.66 GHz models that meet all the other specs you listed 
for $1200 ~ $1300:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2034940032+1039323203+103980232+1041010743+104062589+1039446175&QksAutoSuggestion=&Configurator=&Subcategory=32&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

If the other tangibles and intangibles that come with the Mac don't 
matter to you, can you justify paying $1200 for a 0.27 GHz CPU increase? 
(What else does that $1200 buy you that is of practical value to a 
typical usr? Of course typical users don't pay over $1000 for laptops 
these days, so you might need to replace "typical" with "power.")

When ever I've done a Mac vs. PC comparison, and optimized for needed 
features, rather than trying to find the most exact match, the price 
difference is easily $200+ if not $400+.


On a related note, ExpressHD (http://www.expresshd.com/) has released a 
hardware gizmo that implements Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI), 
needed to boot OS X, for any commodity x86 computer with a USB port. At 
$240 it's a steep price to pay to have access to OS X, but if you 
absolutely had to have OS X and didn't want to pay the premium for Apple 
hardware, it'd pay for itself. (I suspect it will either get cheaper or 
Apple will sue them out of existence.)


Dan Ritter wrote:
> Of course, if you don't tie your life to your fragile laptop,
> you may discover that a $400 one serves pretty well. After two
> years...

Somewhat off topic, but I agree. For the typical user, they're better 
off buying a desktop or laptop that falls within the "sweet spot" of the 
pricing range, and planning on replacing it every 2 to 3 years. After 
about 3 years, they usually end up with a faster machine for the same or 
less money than the person who overbought at the high-end to start with.

This is pretty much just a restatement of Moore's law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

  -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/