Macs Cost More Than Pcs

[Peaches]

Analysts: Macs Cost More Than PCs, but Have Same Hardware

Eric Lai, Computerworld

Apart from "Windows or Linux?" nothing will start an argument in a bar full of techies quicker than, "Which hardware gives you more bang for the buck, Mac or PC?"

A decade ago, it would've been hard for anyone but loyalists to argue in favor of the Mac. The PowerPC's clock speed lagged the Pentium and other x86 CPUs. Meanwhile, components and peripherals for the Mac such as graphics cards and CD drives were limited and pricey because of Apple Inc.'s proprietary designs.

Back then, "for every dollar you spent on a PC, you had to pay about $1.60 to get the same-performing Mac hardware," said Ian Lao, an analyst at In-Stat Inc.

But after Apple switched to Intel processors three years ago, Mac hardware immediately made up a lot of ground against its PC counterparts.

With Tuesday's refreshed Mac desktop lineup, Apple has brought the Mac's graphics capabilities nearly to par with PCs through the addition of new, faster Nvidia and ATI graphics chips and cards, Lao said.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/160756/anal...e_hardware.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[jcl]

Article is fail.

Graphics was a glaring Achilles' heel for the Mac, which was ironic, considering the Mac's wide usage among graphic designers and other creative professionals.

That would have been ironic if graphic designers could have used higher-performance graphics hardware. Until GPGPU came along there wasn't much you could do with GPUs.

Or compare the midrange Mac Pro with Gateway Inc.'s upcoming FX6800-05 PC.

The Mac Pro is a workstation. The Gateway is a gaming rig. This is clearly going to be meaningful comparison.

Both use quad-core 2.93-GHz Intel processors and ATI Radeon HD 4870 graphics cards, 6GB of 1,066-MHz DDR3 RAM and a 1TB 7,200 RPM SATA hard drive.

Sure, they're different processors, graphics cards, RAM, and HDDs, but that doesn't matter, right?

The Core i7, introduced last fall, is similar to Nehalem, but it lacks the latter's new memory chip set that, according to Lao, can speed up performance for compute-intensive tasks up to 13%.

The Mac Pro is probably faster in general...

That advantage is undercut by the Mac Pro's weaker components and higher price. The Gateway's video card comes with an extra processor and 2GB of "honkin' fast" DDR5 RAM perfect for gamers, said Lao, as well as an 80GB solid-state drive for faster Windows booting.

... but the Gateway is better for games and boots Windows really fast! Winner: Gateway!

Yet the Gateway, at $2,999, costs $450 less than the $3,449 Mac Pro configuration.

The Mac Pro is potentially ~15% faster and costs ~15% more. What a gyp.

In the case of the all-in-one iMac, Apple's machine had a slim edge over the competing Dell XPS One 24, while being $100 less in price and 15 lb. less in weight.

Oh no, a counter-example! Run away!

In the end, Mac fans argue that "speeds and feeds" mean little because they don't take Mac OS X's performance or the Mac's looks into account. But that's a topic for another barroom argument.

We're not going to discuss these arguments because they might not support our conclusion.

[isteve]

24" iMac seem like a goo deal

Apple does stick to there price plan and somehow has not been as effected by the economy as others. So they're doing something right.

I being a Mac fanboy or whatever we mac users are called will still buy another Mac. My imac is a little over a year old now has run 24/7. I have not had to do a reinstall and have no antivirus or spyware software. I use the imac as a multichannel home recording studio. Have made several movies and up until recently use it as my bedroom television (it runs cool and very quiet and came with a remote). I also can run Windows XP & 7 and Ubuntu virtually.

I also like the way the iMac looks on my desktop

Oh I also buy refurbished and work for a school system and get a discount. Of course I could get a better discount from Dell.