August 15, 2007
Macs are too damn expensive!
At least that's been the common wisdom for years: Yeah, they're nice computers, but you get much more bang for the buck from PCs.
Except that's not really true, at least if you're interested in something more than a stripped-down, bare-bones model, according to the folks at ComputerWorld.
[W]hat I have found in my research is that neither side has a lock on good value. If you start with Apple's relatively short list of SKUs (three or four model variations for each of its lines, such as MacBook Pro, MacBook and iMac) and then look for comparable Windows machines, you'll find that Apple bests the competition in some ways and not in others, but the pricing overall is surprisingly on par.
Only a few years ago, it seemed like a no-brainer that Windows hardware was much cheaper. But if you're talking name-brand hardware, that's just no longer the case.
[...]
Let's look at some hard numbers. I started my research with top-of-the-line notebooks -- I spent an hour on Dell's site trying to find the cheapest notebook that offered everything Apple's $2,799 MacBook Pro 17 provides.
[...]
I was a little surprised to find that Dell's Inspiron line doesn't currently offer processing power equaling that of the MacBook Pro. To get a 2.33-GHz Core 2 Duo processor (a 2.4-GHz version isn't available yet), you have to move up to Dell's more expensive XPS M1710 with Vista Home Premium.
Once I did that, though, and tricked out the M1710 with only those extras it had to have to compete with the MacBook Pro, I was surprised to see the Dell come in at a whopping $3,459, some $650 more than the Apple product. Now, it's true that the Dell has some additional features (higher-end video and six USB ports instead of three, for example), but it also weighs nearly two pounds more and is much chunkier (1.69-in. thick, compared with 1 in.).
[...]
Bottom line: When you configure low-end and midrange notebooks and desktops, you'll find that except at the very bottom of the heap, Windows machines are roughly comparable in price to Macs. There are fewer Mac models, so if your needs vary from what Apple has decided on, you may find a Windows model that costs less for you. But Apple's choices make a lot of sense for most people, and when you do the point-by-point comparison, Apple is actually a better value for some needs.
There's more to the article, with head-to-head comparisons of PCs to Macs, with price and feature breakdowns.
But one thing seems clear: price is no longer the deciding factor in deciding whether to escape from Windows to OS-X.
Posted by Mike Lief at August 15, 2007 11:15 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
As a user of both platforms simultaneously for over 20 years, in the interest of candor, I have to admit a preference for the Mac. Having said that, one needs to add Mac's great programs that come "free" with the purchase of a new system (iLife) to the comparison. In addition, for $79 you can buy iWork and avoid shelling out bigger bucks for Microsoft Office. iWork can open all Microsoft office files (see Mossberg's recent review in the WSJ). Throw in the Parallels program which allows you to run XP on your Mac, and the comparison is a no-brainer. Biggest value down-side to Macs is that you better have at least 1 gig of RAM (2 is really optimal).
Posted by: glrex at August 18, 2007 12:30 PM