I dipped my toe into water of MacWorld 8 months ago and I'm perfectly happy with my decision. So, sitting at my white MacBook with wireless Mighty Mouse.... Things I like:

- Apple wouldn't lower themselves to providing hardware that isn't up to their software (so yes, it can be expensive)
- As a result, the whole experience tends to be very slick compared to the bargain basement laptops I would have gone for in the past
- It really does "just work" but underlying flexibility, if you need it, isn't always well exposed
- Only one piece of software has ever insisted on starting itself up at startup on my MacBook, and that was by Microsoft (and I just add to edit my user to stop it happening)
- It boots up in the same time as it did the day I bought it
- I like the Me service (mail/calender/online storage and so on, nicely integrated with OSX
- When I have lots of windows open, the dock in conjunction with spaces makes life easy.

Now.... The Mac vs PC question? I think Microsoft have a right to be a little aggrieved. Windows XP is a perfectly usable and stable piece of software. Little wrong with it IMO, other than perhaps it does slow down a great deal over time as you add applications (so, it's higher maintenance).

I wasn't impressed with Vista but I understand that Windows 7 does a lot to catch up with OSX (complete with a dock type thing). Also, with a PC, you *can* buy bargain basement hardware and get pretty good use from it (just be prepared for delays if you run more than a couple of applications).

A huge advantage for the PC (for me at least) is still my experience with the platform..... Need to set up a secure web server with web applications accessing a MySQL database? I can do that for no cost other than my time. It's the sort of thing I've just not yet looked into with my MacBook (Work? I have to use a cr@ppy Dell laptop for work).

Show me mac laptops in the $400-800 range. I'd love to see those.

The cheapest one I see is $999 for a MacBook with these specs:
* 2.13GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
* 160GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
* Keyboard (English) / User's Guide
* SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)

The comparable Dell Inspiron 13.3" config is $800. Not double, but 25% more.

i would love to see those too, but apple doesn't have a product in every category at every price point. in particular, they don't have any netbooks at all, at least not yet (there have been a few hints that something is coming though).

comparing the two, i see that the macbook has 1066 mhz memory versus 800 on the dell, an nvidia 9400m gpu versus an intel x3100, dvi out instead of vga, gigabit ethernet instead of 100 base-t, 6 pin firewire versus 4 pin (can't use bus-powered hard drives with 4 pin firewire) and a multi-touch trackpad. os x is comparable to vista ultimate but the dell comes with vista home premium. on the other hand, the dell has a larger hard drive.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html

so while the dell may be a little cheaper, it's also not exactly the same specs either.

I don't get it - why the back and forth?

Buy a Mac, get VmFusion or Parallels installed with WinXP or whatever at time of purchase and enjoy the best of two worlds. The family will luv the Mac and Dad can bang his head with Win OS :D

Fair, though finding the exact same specs from any two vendors is rather difficult. I thought it was pretty darn close.

And there is still nothing in the Mac product line less than $999. That is a reasonable consideration. There are LOTS of options on the Wintel side in that price range. At the upper end the price-points match more closely, but when you're at the upper end the pricing game is rather different.

I found two that are very comparable and a lot cheaper:

http://www.frys.com/product/5810793?...H:MAIN_RSLT_PG

$650: double the Ram (expandable up to 8gb), double the Hard Drive, bigger screen, integrated card reader, HDMI and VGA out, 3USB plus eSATA, lightscribe dvd drive

that should make up for the slightly lower processor speed and the lower FSB and even the non-gigabit network card, even if you don't count that it is 35% cheaper.


Operating System Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium 64-Bitwith Service Pack 1
Processor Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor T6400
Processor Speed 2.00 GHz
Processor Cache 2 MB L2 Cache
Bus Speed 800MHz FSB
Memory 4096MB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm)
Max supported =8192MB
Accessible Memory Slots 2
Video Graphics Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD (shared) with up to 1759MB total available graphics memory
Hard Drive 320GB (5400RPM) Hard Drive (SATA)
Finish and Features HP Intersect Imprint finish & HP Webcam with integrated digital microphone
Multimedia Drive LightScribe SuperMulti 8X DVD?R/RW with Double Layer Support
Display 14.1" Diagonal WXGA High-Definition HP BrightView Widescreen Display (1280 x 800)
Network Card Integrated 10/100 Ethernet LAN (RJ-45 connector)
Wireless Option Wireless LAN 802.11a/b/g/n WLAN
Digital Media 5-in-1 integrated Digital Media Reader* for Secure Digital cards, MultiMedia cards, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Pro, or xD Picture cards
Fax/Modem High speed 56k modem
Audio SRS Premium Sound
Keyboard 101-key compatible & 1 Quick Launch Button
Pointing Device Touch Pad with On/Off button and dedicated vertical scroll Up/Down pad
PC Card Slots 1 ExpressCard/54 Slot (also supports ExpressCard/34)
External Notebook Ports
3 Universal Serial Bus (USB) 2.0, 4th port shared with eSATA
2 Headphone out
1 microphone-in
HDMI
1 VGA (15-pin)
eSATA + USB 2.0
1 RJ-11 (modem)
1 RJ -45 (LAN)
1 notebook expansion port 3
1 Consumer IR (Remote Receiver)


The other is here:
http://www.frys.com/product/5892903?...H:MAIN_RSLT_PG

$479, That's less than half!

3gb instead of 2 for the mac, double the HD, bigger screen, card reader, PC card slot.

Both come with FREE UPGRADE to W7.

Operating System Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Service Pack 1
Processor Intel® Pentium® T4200 Processor
Processor Speed 2.00 GHz
Processor Cache 1 MB L2 Cache
Bus Speed 800MHz FSB
Memory 3072MB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm)
Max supported =4GB
Accessible Memory Slots 2
Video Graphics Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 4500M with up to 1759MB of Intel® Dynamic Video Memory Technology 5.0 supporting Microsoft® DirectX® 10
Hard Drive 320GB (5400RPM) Hard Drive (SATA)
Finish and Features Acer MediaTouch Console
Multimedia Drive 8X DVD-+R/RW with Double Layer Support
Display 14.1" WXGA Acer CrystalBrite™ Widescreen Display TFT LCD (1280 x 800)
Network Card Integrated 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet LAN (RJ-45 connector)
Wireless Option 802.11b/g/Draft-N WiFi CERTIFIED
Digital Media 5-in-1 Digital Media Card Reader (Secure Digital™ (SD), MultiMediaCard (MMC), Memory Stick® (MS), Memory Stick PRO™ (MS PRO), xD-Picture Card™ (xD)
Fax/Modem 56K ITU V.92 with PTT Approval Fax/Modem
Audio Two Built-in Stereo Speakers

PC Card Slots 1 ExpressCard/54 Slot
External Notebook Ports
Universal Serial Bus (USB) 2.0
Headphone out
microphone-in
VGA (15-pin)
RJ-11 (modem)
RJ -45 (LAN)

As posted in several threads, Macs have a longer useful life than Windows PCs. Buy used. You'll get the same performance, etc., that you'd get with a bargain PC.

There is a large third group: those who are required to use Windows for work, therefore are familiar with it, and therefore use it at home as well.

Personally: I have a PhD in an offshoot of computer science from a fairly well-known engineering school in Cambridge, Mass.; have been a Unix trainer; currently teach (among other things) Access, which requires Windows; and otherwise have fairly decent tech-geek cred. When I have a choice, I use a Mac. It's much better integrated. My time, when I charge for it, is too valuable for me to waste screwing around with Windows - which I'm quite able to do at any necessary level. It's just not a productive use of my time when I have a choice. (When I'm not being paid for my time, it's even more valuable. Why would I waste it trying to get an OS to do what I think it should, when another OS is happy to do that from the get-go?)

Even if you buy a new Mac, and even if you accept the position that it's more expensive than a comparable non-Apple computer would be (arguable anywhere above the lowest price level, which involves compromises many won't accept), you'll come out ahead if you factor in the value of your time over the years you'll use any new computer you get.

The same can be done (though not legally) with most PC's...

Mac fans keep saying that, but I don't see it in the real world. I'm still using a 7 year old Dell Inspiron 8200 with Win XP, for example.

they are close, but as you can see, the macbook beats the dell in a number of specs so it's not too surprising it costs a little more.

mac mini, $599 new.

xp is not the current version of windows. os x leopard is fully supported on macs as far back as 2002 and even earlier with a little coaxing. how well does a pc from 2002 run vista?

those still have a lower spec video chip, slower memory, slower cpu, no firewire, no bluetooth and unknown battery life.

apple doesn't want to play in the under $1000 laptop market, at least right now. if $500 is what you want to spend, it obviously won't be a mac. a $500 laptop is going to have a lower spec than a $1000 laptop, whether it's a mac or a dell or whatever.

Quite well actually. I've also installed Windows 7 on several 2001 machines, and with a little extra ram, it runs very smooth.

While the Mac Mini really is a nice little machine, the entry level Mini is a total piece of junk - 120GB and 1GB is not a serious offering nowadays, especially since neither are easily user-upgradable AND that the $599 does not even get you a keyboard or mouse. Once you spec it on what is considered "normal" nowadays (keyboard, a mouse, 2GB and 320GB) you are looking at a $900 computer - a totally insane price for such a computer.

I really wish Apple would just make a normal desktop computer and price the damn thing at $500.

hahaha, why? Somehow I don't think you would buy it either way.

-David

Clearly, the Amiga.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q

You are splitting hairs. And you know it.

Video is "somewhat slower" if at all. Same goes for chip. 2Ghz vs. 2.13GHz, firewire is of marginal utility at best unless you transfer from a video cam. The Macbook has FW 400 which isn't faster than USB 2.0, either. I'd rather have an HDMI out.

But a bigger screen, twice the Ram and twice the disk space for hundreds of dollars less is not splitting hairs. The specs of these machines make them clearly superior overall and much more so when price/value is factored in.

Overall, it is nicer to work with a Mac and the reliability and quick start-up times play an essential role in that experience. However, I still find that PC is more ergonomic, see my examples, and much more price-worthy.

It's like with everything else, to get the last ten percent of performance you pay double. That's what Mac is.

Till

that's not at all what i'm doing.

there's quite a bit of a difference between an intel gma 4500mhd and an nvidia 9400m, particularly with gpu aware apps. os x itself and quite a few apps, including photoshop cs4, take full advantage of the gpu and a better video chip will make a huge difference in performance.

http://techztalk.com/techwebsite/10-...-graphics-card

"In test done with benchmarking tool 3D Mark Vantage, NVIDIA 9400M offered five-fold performance gain over Intel’s GMA 4500MHD graphics chipset."

the cpu speed is a wash but the memory bus is faster on the macbook (1066 v. 800) along with a 3 meg cache instead of 1 meg. firewire 400 is definitely faster than usb 2 and it also provides enough power to actually spin up a hard drive rather than relying on overspec-ed usb ports or dual usb cables to get more than usb's limit of 500ma per port. in fact, firewire can bus power two laptop drives from the same port. the $479 model only has vga, not hdmi, while the $699 model has hdmi but oddly lacks gigabit ethernet which the $479 model has.

the screen size is an inch bigger but it has exactly the same number of pixels, 1280 x 800, so there's no real difference in actual use. it does come with more memory but that's easy to add, as is swapping the hard drive should it fill up.

overall, it's a less capable machine with a couple of things that spec better than the macbook. in real world use it will be noticeably slower which is why it costs less.

it's actually a very capable entry level computer that's more than adequate for a lot of things.

Yeah, I happily use one for watching movies, web surfing, picture editing etc.

Moving the goalposts a bit there, huh? The computer still works, XP still works and is up-to-date (I think it is still a current OS considering how many still use it, and Microsoft still supports it, but whatever). It does everything my other laptop with Vista does.

But the $479 laptops mentioned above are "noticeably slower?" ;)

The answer to the question is that there is no definitive answer. It is a personal preference thing. Use what you like and enjoy it. There are pros and cons to both platforms at various levels.

agreed. buy whatever best fits your needs. it's just the price comparisons of machines with different specs that i find bogus.

What's going to happen to this argument once Snow Leopard and Windows 7 both start shipping? Snow Leopard's hardware requirements are going to undeniably shift the "longer useful life" argument to Windows 7.

Right now the useful life argument is rather subjective and based largely on personal preferences around what level of performance someone can put up with. Therefore there's no clear winner, as is obvious with some of these responses. However, in a few months from now this argument will no longer be subjective. Snow Leopard simply will not support legacy hardware dating back as far as Windows 7 will. It won't be a debatable point; Windows 7 will have the advantage in the "longer useful life" argument.

"Windows 7 beats Snow Leopard on older hardware support":

http://www.techchuck.com/2009/06/11/...dware-support/

Ahhh..... Nothing but fond memories of the Amiga. I got through a computer science degree with an expanded A500. It's what Mac should have been but didn't didn't achieve before OSX.

But $599 is not an entry-level price. In the PC world, $599 gets you a pretty beefy desktop (I paid that much for my current quad core Dell XPS).

I do not understand how Apple can get away with charging so much for so little.

Their laptops show a decent value for money, with a very good design, but the Mini is just boring and lacks any innovation, including user upgradable memory.

Hmmmm..... Sound enough argument though I suspect many Mac Users will continue to use pre Snow Leopard versions of OSX for years to come. There isn't really any degree of built in obsolescence (I suspect XP will be used for years to come for the same reason). A computer's life span isn't necessarily defined by its ability to run the latest/greatest OS.

That said, it does look like Microsoft has had quite a re-think after being booed off the stage with Vista.

I have used both for many years, and while OS X on the MAC is a nice experience, you can have the same experience under Windows 7...

The hardware inside a Mac Pro is really not that different from what is inside a computer running Windows. Custom motherboard just like the big names (Dell, HP, Lenovo) have, but the other parts such as hard drives, memory, and all are the same as in windows based computers.

What you are paying for with Apple is the fact that they have kept things running very stable by having a VERY limited amount of hardware types to run on, while Windows can run on thousands of hardware combinations. Keeping the hardware limited like this ends with a very stable operating system as there is no issues with compatibility between various manufacturer's drivers, which is what caused Windows computers to be unstable at times.

OS X is what it is due to Apple limiting hardware and as a result, insuring stability. If they ever were to open it up, letting anyone install OS X on any hardware, such as what Microsoft allows now, then it would lose the stability it has now, and while still having a nice user experience, would bring in the same issues that Microsoft deals with often.

Microsoft could release their own PCs, running on their own hardware, charging like Apple does, but they chose to release a product that works on any mainstream hardware out there, giving it the large flexibility it has now...

So it all boils down to one question really, how much do you prefer to spend on your PC? (Windows and OS X systems are both PCs, Personal Computers)

This is a lesson that Microsoft has learned the hard way, and they're actually making some changes to better balance between reliability and hardware flexibility. Windows Mobile 7 is a great example. They've implemented must stricter hardware requirements that phone OEM's must adhere to, and they've actually announced that they're going to support fewer manufacturers on WM7 than previous versions of WM. The iPhone is a great experience because Apple controls the hardware and software. Microsoft is trying to get closer to "controlling" the hardware in order to provide a more reliable and better performing experience, while still allowing enough hardware flexibility to give consumers the choice over the form factor that works best for them individually.

If you're willing to spend a few $$ more for a Mac, you could run both Mac and PC. I wander through my local Starbucks and see Windows running natively (not through Parallels) on Macs a lot.

If Parallels Desktop is in full-screen mode there is no way you can tell, by looking at a Mac or watching a person use it, whether Windows uses Parallels Desktop or is running native. You would have to either ask its user or press Alt-Enter (Option-Enter in Macspeak) to try to return Parallels Desktop to windowed mode and see if it does. "Wander through my local Starbucks and see" doesn't suggest that you did either of these.

If you're not on a budget, get a Mac. I use a PC, but like Macs better. Cross compatibility between the two systems is much more seamless than in the past.

Or why not just throw OS X on a computer that previously ran Windows... and get the best of both worlds as well, just without the high cost of a pure Mac?

the 'high cost of a pure mac' is a myth. when both machines are configured the same, there is very little difference in price.

Just got my MBP 17 and I'm loving it. With my Macbook, iPhone and Time Capsule, I'm very impressed how EVERYTHING worked perfectly right out of the box.

My MBP was $2,344 after the Education discount. As a comparison, the closest machine I could find in terms of features and components is the Dell/Alienware M17X - pricing out similar components gave me a price before ship/tax of $2,224.

On the higher end, there isn't much which differentiates Apple and MS-based laptops on price. It's on the lower end where Apple's entry-level laptops are typically twice the price (or more) of MS-based devices, although there is still a noticeable advantage going to Apple in terms of the components and features of their entry level laptops which tend to bend the price comparison at the low-end as well.

I installed Parallels (I found it's hybrid view much easier and better-featured than Fusion) to run a small number of Windows apps as needed.

Right, but there are no low-end models to meet the budget end of the marketplace. So the average price is higher. The fact that the processor is faster is mostly irrelevant to someone who just uses their computer for email and web browsing.

We've discussed this over and over again it feels... :D

The "very little difference in price really" only applies to the high end machines. It isn't hard to make a PC seem expensive when you compare an MBP with an Alienware or Voodoo machine.

But you can get a similarly spec'd machine from HP or Toshiba in their low end lineup for about a third. And yes - the build quality will be nowhere near as good as on the MBP, but to most people stuff like build quality and looks are not worth $1500.

it applies to all of their machines. the only issue is that apple does not have products at all price points, particularly the low end.

that means the cheapest pc is cheaper than the cheapest mac, but the machines don't have the same specs so i don't know why anyone would expect them to have the same price. match the specs and the price difference pretty much goes away, and it need not be alienware either.

$$ upfront is ONE thing, and it is certainly easier to find a more budget friendly machine than a mac in most cases. Although, I think for what one gets, the newest low end macbooks 13" unibody represent some of the best value out there.

But, we all know that is just one narrow area for macs. They just WORK, I have used macs and pcs for nearly 30 years now (okay, it was APPLE products back in the late 70's) and especially today the macs just work, they run solid, they don't crash, they don't require constant tending to keep them running optimally. If I can save five minutes day in startup, hassle, not having to fix something, etc (this is really more like 20-30 minutes) in a WEEK of working I have saved well in excess of the difference in money upfront - and the icing on the cake just keeps growing from there.

I STILL run both platforms for different reasons (I use a tablet sometimes for meetings and my consutling gigs) and when I am using my macs, I get into a nice mode of only thinking about my topic and not the bike.

Amen to that. I dread turning on my little Vista notebook after a few days.

"Important- this is something you should do!"

"It's been 30 days since your last full backup!"

"Your free trial of Windows Up-to-Date is almost expired!"

"There are important updates to install!"

"Vista is tuning up your computer" (Everything runs slow for a while)

"Vista is checking for spyware" (Slow again)

I've always used Macs and I partially bought the thing to become familiar with Windows. I know the cool thing to do is install OSX, but I still learn something every day in Windows so I consider the OS to be the cost of educating myself.