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...

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.