After Hours

Ask something
Discussion Locked

rotten apples?

0 helpful
27 replies

by alex gerulaitis

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
article root

27 replies

by alex gerulaitis

(continuing PC vs. Mac Pro debate from here:

https://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-393732)

Specifically, this claim:

"Mac is considered the best Windows computer on the market when matched against spec-for-spec, feature-for-feature non-Apple computers."

My take: with all due respect to Apple and the quality of their products, the statement above is false and the opposite is true.

HP Z820 Workstation 850W B2C06UT Smartbuy - $3,399
- Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
- Intel Xeon Processor E5-2630 2.3 15M 1333 6C
- 8GB DDR3-1600 (4x2GB) 1CPU Unbuffered
- AMD FirePro V7900 (2GB)
- 1TB SATA 6 Gb/s NCQ 7200 rpm
- 16X DVD+/- RW DL SuperMulti
- 3 years parts, labor and onsite service (3/3/3) standard warranty

Add HP Intel Xeon E5-2630 2.30GHz 15MB 1333 FSB 6 Core 2nd Processor A6S88AA) - $1100
Add HP 4x HP 2GB (A2Z47AT) - $200

Total: $4,699.00

Opponent's example:

"The Mac Pro, with dual 2.66 GB Xeon processors, 12 GB RAM, 1 TB 7200 RPM SATA HDD, and ATI Radion HD 5870 graphics was $5199."

by hal 9000

Otherwise one of the Moderators here will see this and think that it's spam and delete it if you are lucky.

Clicking on the [b]Take Off Line[/b] option starts a new thread in the [b]Water Cooler Area[/b] and is unrelated tot he thread that it came from. ;)

Col

by alex gerulaitis

I didn't feel the Mac Pro vs. PC discussion belonged to the original thread. If the moderators nuke it, so be it. :)

(The link is back to TechRepublic - will moderators see that?)

by deadly ernest

you get around to comparing comparable systems as a total system then an Apple Mac is a better cost deal than an equivalent performance PC with the same amount of proprietary software - and that's something a lot of people forget when doing the Mac vs PC discussion. To get a PC equal to an Apple you have to spend about as much again as the hardware to match the software. However, if you go for as much free or open source software, then you can get a match for a lot less as a PC.

The thing is not everyone wants or needs all the software you get with an Apple, and that's why they see it as dearer.

by nicknielsen

Really? Somebody who disagrees with you is an "opponent"? This is a discussion, not a war.

You referred to certain models of computer, saying the claim that one was much cheaper than the other was the equivalent of trolling. I used the examples you provided to show that one was much cheaper than the other. I made no claims about the equivalence of the systems. I am not familiar with either system and assumed that, since you had compared them, they were in fact equivalent.

by alex gerulaitis

It was rigged, I explained why, but didn't see an admission of error.

Further, unlike the Mac store, HP web prices are often hiked 20-30% vs. what you can get from resellers or with coupons or with the so called "smartbuys".

Sure, we can still get the general idea what the price discrepancies are, but pitching a $4K Quadro 6000 vs. a $400 ATI card - that's just rotten apples, gentlemen.

I believe the term "opponent" is a correct one for a discussion. Isn't it "enemy" for a war?

by hal 9000

But the majority of the other Peers here will not. I'm constantly posting to click on the Blue Type to get to the original article when people ask. ;)

Col

by alex gerulaitis

You may have noticed that I put actual numbers in my first post. I haven't even started comparing those Mac Pros to Core i7 configs that offer a vastly superior performance-for-the-buck ratio than anything HP or Apple could ever come up with. I was trying to compare apples to apples.

Have you tried that?

Talk is cheap. How about a real world (and realistic, commonplace) scenario where a Mac is a "is a better cost deal than an equivalent performance PC"?

by deadly ernest

The Apple iMac with it all in the monitor - 27 inch 2560 x 1440 screen, i5 3.1 Ghz, CPU 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD, 1 GB ATI Radeon graphics, and usual extras is A$2,299.00

Try to match that as a similar all in one from Dell Aust - XPS One 27 inch system with nVidia graphics -with just MS Windows 7 and MS Office 2010 it's $2,547.00

Build it as a standard desktop box and the hardware alone is A$1,787.00, add in MS Win 7 and Office 2010 and it's up to $2,620.00

The Mac comes with a lot of extra software that's not on the MS systems above, like a good image manip program equal to Adobe CS 5.5 at A$331.00.

Now you can cheap down the MS system by going with a much lower level version of Windows or Office, or you can step right outside the Windows world and go with Linux like I do with Zorin OS, at which point the hardware price of $1,787.00 is the total cost.

Interestingly when I went about customising the Dell systems to find comparable prices there, Linux was NOT an optional OS for any of the systems I looked at.

In short, where you come out ahead in the Mac world is the total cost if you want more than a very low end MS Win OS like Home or any full software. Want to netsurf only, get a cheap Windows Netbook or better still and cheap Linux Netbook.

by alex gerulaitis

Of course. Including MS Office with a Windows machine is a requirement for a Mac to be a "a better cost deal".

How did I not think of it?! :)

You Mac fans are just hilarious.

by deadly ernest

and I don't know of any PC, except a server, that doesn't have an office suite of some sort on it. Since we're looking at a proprietary Apple system as against a proprietary Microsoft system, then MS Office needs to be included. If we go further and add a graphics manipulation program or the rest of the full blown software on an Apple iMac the price difference goes up higher by adding MS Outlook at A$193.00, MS Publisher for A$193.00 and MS Project for A$883.00.

Apple sells a complete package and Microsoft doesn't, so the only way to get real comparative prices is to price the same set ups. I kept it down to what you'd see as a basic system for general Office use.

I've always said the advantage in buying Apple was all the software gave you a lower total price if you wanted ALL that software. However, few do, thus for most it's not worth the cost. Want to save more, just go with unix or Linux and use Open Source software that does what you want. I expect you'll next say Open Source can't match a particular piece of special software you use that only works on Windows; well, if that's the case you're already locked-in with the Microsoft intended vendor lock-in.

BTW I do NOT own, and have never owned an Apple products at all. In fact I've only ever used a Mac on twice, both times it was another's system and they wanted me to show them how to do something on it. Which I was soon able to work out and show them.

My own system runs Zorin OS 5 Linux and I use Libre Office on a daily basis.

by slayer_

I have had my new laptop for nearly a year now, and still haven't gotten around to installing Office. The one time I needed a word processor, Wordpad worked just fine.

by nicknielsen

How does finding holes in your arguments or pointing out the fallacy of blanket statements make us Mac fans?

The Mac comes with the software, the Dell and HP do not. If you want 'equivalent' platforms, then software should be included, particularly since it's my understanding you can't get the Mac without it.

by alex gerulaitis

The "fallacy of blanket statements" makes it a pointless discussion. So maybe stay away from them?

This is where it began:

"Mac is considered the best Windows computer on the market when matched against spec-for-spec, feature-for-feature non-Apple computers." I didn't say that, a Mac fan did.

Care for another jab or a blanket statement?

As far as the requirements for Office: wouldn't that be a blanket statement too?

Today, a web-connected Chromebook for under $500 can do 99% of what users need. No Office needed - not for Chromebook, not for for the majority of Windows and especially Linux-based PCs. What's Apple's alternative?

For nearly any Apple product there is a significantly more powerful PC for the same price. I can prove it as I did with the Mac Pro vs. Z820 example above. That's because [b]Apple is a premium brand[/b]. It doesn't focus purely on value or performance, it focuses on premium quality and user experience.

The fact that you guys are trying to argue with what is a broad consensus among experts and users alike, only proves one thing:

As far as this discussion is concerned, Mac fans have a tendency for blanket and thus often completely false statements, making a productive discussion pointless.

Cheers. :)

by deadly ernest

mandarin is exactly the same as an orange. Which is what you did in your first post where you failed to include comparable software to make both system delivered with the same capabilities.

At no point has anyone said that you can't buy the same or better computer hardware for what you buy an Apple Mac with all it's software for. All we've said is that when you bring the PC with Windows up to be the near equivalent to an Apple Mac with the appropriate proprietary software the Apple Mac has the Windows system blown away for the price. I even went on to say you could blow both away by buying the same hardware and loading up with Open Source software and save a huge fortune.

Now as to the claim about buying a Netbook type device and using web based services being the same as buying a PV - well, that's akin to saying buying a 50 foot cabin cruiser is the equal of buying and using the Queen Mary 2. They are two totally different products that serve two totally different needs; but what can expect, this is the second time you've tried to change the playing field to make your view look good. You started this with talking about full blown desktops, and I find it funny the only way you can continue to try and win your argument is to switch to comparing an Apple Mac desktop to a lightweight Netbook with only a tenth of the real capabilities of the Mac.

Now, for my main work I need a full blown office package on my system to do my work because I write books and I need to be able to use the full formatting capabilities they provide for both the word processor package and the spreadsheet package I use. I also need to be able to use them when the Internet is NOT available to me, which is often as I live in a rural area. I also require security on what I write so I can't have that being out on the Internet until I want it out there.

BTW The only person who seems to think your point of view matches a broad consensus of experts and users is yourself, most people I know in the industry say the same as I do, and most of us have absolutely nothing to do with Macs at all. Like any REAL expert we look at and recommend a client gets whatever system will meet their REAL needs, not just what we prefer.

I've exchanged words with Mac fans in the past, and done the same with Linux and Microsoft fans too, but none of the them hold a candle to the weird behaviours of the Mac haters who thinks anyone who doesn't hate Macs is a Mac fanboy.

The only truthful statement you've made is that any further discussion is pointless as each time I point out the facts that your positions and statements are wrong, you come back with an attempt to change the playing field again so you can continue to avoid comparing like with like.

by nicknielsen

My home PCs are all homebuilt white boxes, all running either WinXP or one or the other Linux distribution. I don't own a Mac, or any other Apple hardware, never have, and because of the Apple "our way or the highway" attitude toward the end user, probably never will.

You are correct in at least one respect: at the desktop user level, Apple computers are considered premium devices. Vulpinemac is correct in at least one respect: using the equipment you originally cited (HP Z200 with Quadro 6000 card), it is possible to purchase a Mac for half the cost.

by deadly ernest

so you just HAVE to be a Mac fan in his lexicology - simple logic of making sure you're comparing the same things aren't at all relevant to the discussion for some.

by alex gerulaitis

"Vulpinemac is correct in at least one respect: using the equipment you originally cited (HP Z200 with Quadro 6000 card), it is possible to purchase a Mac for half the cost."

Hate to be beating the dead horse but again:
- Quadro 6000 is about $4K,
- not available on anything Mac,
- the ATI card that was pitched against it, was a $400 card

You could as well have pitched a Mac Pro against a Cray system. Yes, you can buy a Mac for a fraction of a Cray. Is it a silly, rigged and unfair comparison? Let me see anyone here who says "yes" even to that obvious fact. :)

P.S. Can't put a Q6K into a Z200 - it was an EOL Z800 - replaced by a Z820 that's been shipping since April - and runs circles around anything Mac.

by deadly ernest

I didn't look at the two systems someone else mentioned, when asked for a comparison of systems to support my comment I gave the details of two systems that were as close to the same systems in both hardware and software as I could easily price from my local sources. That information supported what I said that when you have two systems the same the Mac is cheaper than a Windows system with the same level proprietary software. I also stated you could step away from proprietary software and save a damn sight more by NOT buying any Microsoft software at all.

As two the HP and Mac quoted in your initial post, you price one system with insufficient proprietary software to do any real work with, and thus generate a lower price, but when the software packages near parity the Mac comes out cheaper. Which only goes to support what I've said all along, if you want all that proprietary software the Mac is a better buy, if you don't want all that proprietary software keep away from Mac, and Keep away from Microsoft as both cost you a lot more. But you appear to have trouble accepting that position due to your hatred of all things Mac, I don't like Mac either, but if it's the best choice to meet a client's need I'll tell them to buy it, and the exact same applies to Microsoft software - if suggesting what I think is best I tell them Zorin OS Linux with Libre Office for their office package as long as it meets their stated needs.

by alex gerulaitis

This is becoming surreal.

[b]You said:[/b] "Vulpinemac is correct in at least one respect: using the equipment you originally cited (HP Z200 with Quadro 6000 card), it is possible to purchase a Mac for half the cost."

[b]I responded[/b] and explained why this is a faulty comparison rigged to produce false results.

How am I switching subjects? Which part?

Does anything in [b]your[/b] post address the obvious error of this comparison?

If not, who exactly is switching subjects?

by alex gerulaitis

"All we've said is that when you bring the PC with Windows up to be the near equivalent to an Apple Mac with the appropriate proprietary software the Apple Mac has the Windows system blown away for the price."

You are saying, Macs are generally cheaper than PCs with equivalent hardware? Yet once you add the software that's included with Macs, to PCs - Macs become cheaper. That sounds right?

And if we don't add that software, PCs are cheaper?

Can you find me a Mac equivalent of Lenovo W530 that sells at $1200 and up? When comparing, please include similar specs: screen size, resolution, processor series and speed, amount of memory, discrete graphics (it's OK that GeForce is much less expensive than Quadro K, I'll let it slide for this test) etc.

Please don't include expensive items or software that is not part of either system.

Cheers.

by deadly ernest

the HPz200 being equal to anything, you did that.

I did say that when you compare two systems of the same tech specs and the same proprietary software load the Apple Mac was cheaper the the equivalent Windows system. You challenged that so I got figures on a Mac where I could match the hardware with both from sources in my country - this proved the Mac was a cheaper hardware plus software deal as stated. You then claimed it was wrong to include then software to make them comparable system, then you go back to the HP system I never even spoke about, and are now back there again.

It seems you can't admit that when you get fully equivalent systems the Windows systems cost more than the Macs due to the higher cost of the software.

I have also said, repeatedly, if you totally ignore Microsoft software you can get a much cheaper system than a Mac or a Windows based system, which you also seem to ignore while you concentrate on trying to prove a Windows system is cheaper than a Mac as long as you don't add any software.

by deadly ernest

it out, go ahead. This sub thread started life with you challenging my comment that a fully loaded Mac compared to an equally fully loaded Windows system of the same hardware and software the Mac comes out cheaper. I proved that with the figures from Australian companies in the same city.

Now you want me to find you a Mac with a specific set of hardware specs that don't match any of the standard Macs, well you can do that, but it's nothing to do with what we WERE discussing - which was pricing of comparable systems.

While you want to go and look at extreme systems, please feel free to see what Microsoft software you can get to run on a top end Cray system, all those I've read about run Unix or Linux as Windows just doesn't cut it for them.

by ansugisalas

Start with the point where you made a reference to "consensus".
Just because "everybody (that I have happened to talk to about this) agrees" doesn't make it truth.

This discussion is closed to new replies.