What's the price comparison between PC & Mac?

Both work, PCs are cheaper. The cheapest new Mac you’re going to find is $600 without a keyboard, mouse, or monitor. You can pick up a PC for about $300 for a low end model. No comment about how well it would suit you for what you’re doing.

The truth is there’s no real advantage to using a Mac for graphic design, it’s more of a tradition, self-fulfilling prophecy, and catch-22 than a necessity. Artists uses Macs because that’s what other artists use, that’s what they’re trained on in art school, and that’s where a lot of the first rate software is. However, if you’re using the Adobe suite the software is virtually identical on both platforms.

Macs have come down in price as of late, but they still can’t compete with PCs.

I say all this as a dedicated Mac user. =)

Macs usually just work. I have had my current one for three years and have never had a major problem with it. All the fixes are simple. My sister has a Acer laptop that is constantly getting fucked. If I actually charged her to fix it she would have saved money buying a Mac. Same goes for my mom and aunt. I get a few calls every month that something is funky.

It depends on the level of video editing you need to do. If you need Final Cut Pro you need a Mac. All the other stuff is about the same on either platform.

I think if you actually compare spec for spec, Macs are not as much more expensive as one would think. Because Apple doesn’t really have an entry level portable nor desktop, you gotta compare prices and performance with a mid to upper level PC.

PC’s are cheaper.
Such blanket statements are rarely true but in this case, without question, PC’s are cheaper.

And they’re more fun.

@johnpowell wrote – If you need Final Cut Pro you need a Mac. All the other stuff is about the same on either platform.

True that.

I’m a digital media major in college; I have both a home-built PC desktop and a Mac laptop. They both have their perks. Some art and design programs are built specifically for Mac or work better on one, which is why I got this laptop in the first place. They make higher end Macs for design purposes, with great graphics cards and all that. However, those high-end models are going to be mighty expensive. Also think about how much you’re going to have to spend on the software. When I bought my 17” MacBook Pro this past summer with Adobe Creative Suite 4 and some other odds and ends, it ended up costing a bit over $2000. And that was with a discounted student version of Adobe. But, I got a free iPod Touch out of the deal, so that counts for something…

My PC on the other hand has cost much less than that, although I can’t be sure of the exact cost since I don’t remember the cost of each individual part. But it’s easy to take an existing computer and give it the guts to run beautifully for design at a fraction of the price of a Mac.

The important things for design are: the graphics card, the memory and the processor. Often these design programs take up a lot of memory for the computer, so you’ll want a lot. You’ll also probably want a decent monitor, and for PCs those are just getting cheaper and cheaper.

I’m actually in the process of replacing some parts on my PC. I purchased a new motherboard, memory and processor, all highly recommended. It cost about $400 and I’m basically getting a brand new computer. Pretty sweet, huh?

Plus, if you ever want to play computer games… they’re the only way to go.

The main thing people like about pc’s is the software and windows, and if thats what your worried about, buy a mac for the hardware, and for the graphics, and load a program called bootcamp for your mac, and then you can run leopard (macs main program) or you can hit windows, so you get the best of both worlds.

Although for laptops, MacBook own all.
Now put Windows 7 on a Macbook and you’re all set.

@Captain_Fantasy that is pretty much the best thing you could do for a portable laptop, unless you want to pay 6,000 for an amazing alien-ware laptop.

@majorrich Mac computers are still slightly more expensive when you’re comparing performance per capita, but it’s negligible. Point is though, there’s not a single Mac below $600, and at that the cheapest Apple laptop is $999. Even if it’s not a bad deal for what you get, it’s still a thousand bucks.

Well, the mac Mini is $579. lol… I do really like my Macbook Pro, despite it’s being a loin burner. Are there any PC portables that have an aluminum or Titanium body?

@majorrich I could build a decent Beowulf cluster out of PC components for les than the price of most Macs, and I don’t think many Macs can match the power of a 10-node cluster. Therefore, I assume that you are referring only to prebuilt systems. Hell, a little shopping around and I could get a decent Core i7 system for cheap without having to do all the jiggery-pokery involved with configuring a cluster!

@Captain_Fantasy Or just get Linux, configure WINE or a decent VM, and rock from there :P

i do not really know the comparison…
or how much they really are, but i do know that PC is cheaper
and mac is pretty much more expensive than PCs

@jerv
Great, I will tell my mom about the advantages of Beowulf clusters, she will be all over that, her email and MS Word will be wicked fast when we get that set up. Linux and VM?! What could be better, it will be like Christmas morning for her!!!!

I am not disputing any of that. I could build the same system. I am actually an MCSE (XP) but Microsoft wanted me to take all the courses for a minor update so I retired and went Mac. I could even build a pretty kick-ass system that would run OSX, but I am satisfied with what I have. I like that, with vertical integration, Macs always work. I have a Ti-book that is 15 years old (that would be built in 1995) that still runs OSX Tiger and benchmarks faster than many portables way newer. It would even stomp large if I installed an SSDD.

I am in full agreement, it is possible to buy or build a pc way cheaper than Apple. But I digress. We agree that when performance is benchmarked, the marginal cost per gigaflop is not way out of line. Apple is more expensive, but not by as much a margin as some tout. That was my original statement.

http://i43.tinypic.com/insgmx.png

@majorrich And thus are a total waste for people like @jaytkay‘s mother. Or do you drive a multi-million-dollar F1 car when a Toyota Corolla will do?
As for the cost not being out of line, bear in mind that every computer I’ve owned cost less under $1000 combined. That’s half a dozen systems that are more than adequate and can compete with whatever on the mainstream shelves, all of them for less than the price of the average Mac.
I go by my experience, and my experience makes that margin seem a hell of a lot wider than in would be if I just bought pre-built PCs. Maybe it’s just that I’ve been lucky though. And youa re correc tthat the costs are more comparable than they used to be.

I will also concede the durability. I have to get (or, more likely, make) a new battery for my old PB 180. Sure, I have a faster portable rig, but the PB180 is tough enough to use in a bar fight and heavy enough to fracture skulls with ease. I just want to see how many miles I can get out of it.

@jerv I don’t think anyone here is disputing that PCs are cheaper than Macs, all @majorrich is really saying is that you have to keep things in context and compare similarly priced Mac machines and PCs. Obviously if you build your own it’s going to be cheaper, but the point is we’re not talking about homegrown Macs, so keep the discussion in context by comparing them with pre-built PCs.

@noyesa Does “Tower only, no OS” count and “pre-built”? I’m talking all of the basic components (CPU, motherboard, RAM, drives…) already in the case, just add your own OS, monitor, and keyboard/mouse.

Regardless, Apple is doing better in that regard than in the past. It used to be a slam-dunk for the PC, but Apple has finally learned their lesson and no longer charged 2–3 times what the PC world does for the same thing. Maybe in another 5–10 years they will actually achieve cost parity.

The Mac Mini is a ripoff, unless you really need something tiny. About the only thing it has going for it is that you won’t find a prebuilt PC that small and that powerful; the only PCs that size are either “nettops” with an Atom CPU or a custom job. However, the specs are underwhelming for the price.

The MB Pro needs to update it’s specs a bit if they expect to get those prices but the regular Macbooks are worth considering especially if you can get a student discount. Of course, as the lowest tier of Macbooks, they are a little limited so not suitable for all users. Also, PCs go on sale sometimes too, so it’s still leaning towards the PC.

On the desktop side, you pay a bit for the styling with the iMac but I have to admit that they look pretty. It depends on what sort of cash value you stick on aesthetics. They aren’t bad computers, but their specs are not quite up to where a comparably priced PC would be. Maybe whenthe next revision comes out…

As for the Mac Pro, that is actually a workstation and probably the only Mac that qualifies as a real bargain. Sure, it’s pricey, but unlike the other Macs, it’s the only one where you can’t easily find a comparable prebuilt PC that is cheaper. Of course, the Mac Pro is also severe overkill for most people.

I am talking about open the box, plug it in and go. If I have to deploy 500 units, I don’t have the time to put into each individual unit that an obvious basement geek like some people (say like @jerv ). I don’t even think it is possible to have a reasonable and objective discussion with idiots like this. Their minds are made up before they even begin to think. Thank you @noyesa for understanding that I was trying to answer the question and not air dirty laundry or tout my own prowess.

First off, @majorrich, check your comments.
Second, I am nothing if not objective. I just happen to have a different opinion from you since I am working from a different—(and apparently larger) data set and/or have a different thought process.—
Third, check your comments ;)

If we are talking that simple then you know why some places go for laptops even if they never leave the desk; they are one-piece systems with no assembly required. Aside from laptops, there are not many all-in-one PCs, especially none that are well-suited for that type of work, so the iMac wins almost by default. I mean, which is more cost-effective; a slightly overpriced computer that works or a cheaper one that can’t get the job done?
Besides, I know enough about efficiency and time management to be able to do a simple cont/benefit analysis. The question with the 500-unit scenario you mention is simply whether it’s worth a few dollars a unit to save a few dollars in manpower… which is also considerably different from a person looking for a single machine.

However, many people who do video/image work are smart enough to plug in a few cables (monitor, keyboard….) and thus don’t need a one-piece system, thereby returning us to my previous post here.

.

Now, It seems a bit like your mind is also made up before you started to think. Or maybe I am just reading a little too much into your use of the word “idiots” there and taking that to mean that you have some sort of bias against people different than you. I would prefer to keep this thread about comparing the prices of Macs and PCs, but if you want to make it personal with a little name-calling, I’m game.

Or are you misreading my intentions here?

Meh. If you only knew what it was like bringing a college up from terminals to xt’s through the x86 wars to today (well actually 8 years ago when I retired) I was exclusively a PC man. I have spent countless hours building and studying to take all kinds of certifications only to become ill and have to sit here and watch from the sidelines. I am nothing if not open to the cost side of the mac/pc question, particularly from the academic world where every third professor will not have anything but a mac on their desk.

I began our whole discussion with the simple statement that if one looks at the two platforms I see here (yes I am running a toshiba and a mac) Stat for Stat, component for component. The only real bit difference I see is the software (save the powerpc which has a motorolla RISC chip) When I get two “factory built” machines like I would use in a lab or for a mass deployment (hundreds of units) The cost factor per unit is negligible. of course I get pretty good discounts from all parties involved. The fact remains a computer is a computer. They make ones and zeros. Most of the cost is wound up in the software. Performance is in the parts, and when they are the same, the cost isn’t a whole lot different.

It seems the more I try to explain that. The more argument and weaseling I seemed to get out of you and I grew irritated. If I offended you, I regret having called you an idiot. I’ve been at this for over 30 years and run into ‘Dorks’ all the time questioning why I think the way I do, only to hear them whisper ‘oh yeah’ later in the shop. That is where I come from.

Um… so the moral of the story is that PCs are cheaper.

the moral of the story goes like this: A PC is a BMW M3 at M3 price. A Mac is a car that looks like a Ferrari Enzo and costs as much as an Enzo, but is just an M3 with a slightly differently programmed ecu. What you pay more for is essentially a pretentious body kit.

@ragingloli No.

I am PC laptop shopping (Mac is not an option my purposes) and I can say one big advantage of Macs is consistent high quality.

I have spent hours figuring out which ones have decent keyboards, hinges, battery life, bodies, and spare battery availability. Also finding which ones are glossy fingerprint-magnets, have dodgy trackpad surfaces and poor screens for bright light.

Macs have consistently high quality components, I would have had a machine a couple of weeks ago if I just bought a Mac.

@jaytkay Definitely very true. I’m not that much of a Mac bigot (it’s a personal decision), but one thing I can’t deny is that the construction quality and longevity of Apple computers is much higher than any PC I’ve used. They’re not just more elegant looking, but the design and construction is smarter and better.

Virtually every PC laptop I’ve ever used felt like a cheap happy meal toy, and I’ve never been comfortable using any Dell or HP laptop—they all suffer from glaring ergonomic flaws that are minor, but do inhibit the experience. Ergonomic quality isn’t a priority, and is usually thoughtlessly affected by adding unecessary features to the unit.

A lot of what you’re paying for when you drop the bones for a Mac is a very large dedication to human experience. Apple is a champion of industrial design and human factors engineering is a huge part of what makes it such a successful brand of electronics.

@majorrich Yo no hablo Inglés :P
Seriously though, I get frustrated easily myself… and often. Especially when I get that sort of flak when I am not trying to be flippant, rude, etcetera.
At the end of the day, it’s all about doing fun things with 1s and 0s, and all three (Mac, Windows (Bleh!), and Linux) can get the job done.

@jaytkay I agree. Like I said, that PB 180 is still going, and I somehow think it’ll be around after the Apocalypse. I have yet to see a PC laptop that I would actually wield in a fight.

@noyesa I won’t deny Apple that either.
However, I’ve never been impressed with the ergonomics of any Mac I’ve ever used in the last 20 years either. In fact, the more they pretty themselves up, the worse they get in that regard. My old Performa 6200 was notably more comfortable for me to use than any of the current crop of Macs. Then again, I find the same to be true of nearly anything that claims to be “ergonomically designed” since it’s usually made to fit someone totally unlike me. Try wearing shoes that are 2 sizes too small to get the picture.

I am not really that big of a PC bigot (hard as that may be to believe), and I am also anti-Dell for some of the reasons I am not a fan of Macs; too pricey for what you really get.
What I like is a computer that does what I want/need at the best price and how many dollars I am willing to spend depends on how closely a system meets my needs. Considering that PCs usually come with Windows (or occasionally Linux) pre-installed and pre-configured, I don’t consider that to be an advantage for Mac, especially since Linux and (to a lesser extent) Windows have made some great strides since Apple touted the whole “It just works, right out of the box!” thing.

If Apple offered Core i5 CPUs in their current machine with no other changes at their current prices, I’d be all over them. If they used the Core i3, I’d still consider paying the slight premium and recommend them to those who may have different tastes than I do. As it stands currently, I just can’t recommend most Macs.

@jerv I understand what you’re saying. If you buy a Mac, you overspend. It’s similar to Sony, in my opinion—good, but not proportionally better to how much you spend on it. I guess it takes a certain personality.

Mac OS X is something that is amazing if it’s your thing. If it isn’t, it seems like a waste of an awful lot of dollars so get a fancy OS with an attractive interface in a prettied up machine. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it, and that’s not a fault. It clicks with some of us, and I appreciate a lot of its nuances, things that aren’t life or death but I don’t mind spending the little bit I did to get my Mac. On the other hand, it’s a totally worthless and stupid waste of money to get a prettied up Unix OS with a swell handful of applications.

@noyesa It would be nice if some PC makers would actually make some decent quality hardware. Having spent as long as I have in manufacturing and all, I have a pretty good idea of how much quality really costs, and I also happen to know that Apple has a higher profit margin than many others.

Maybe things would be better if they went back to licensing clones like they did in the ‘90s. IIRC, the clones were technically as good as a Mac, but they were uglier and not as well-built, leading many to go to Apple for their Mac fix anyways. Maybe they’d be better if Apple got back to it’s slightly more Bohemian roots… though I think Linux took over that niche when Apple temporarily abandoned it last decade. Still, I’d like to see the Mac be more competitive than it currently is.

Also bear in mind that much of Apple’s recent uptick has had to do with non-Mac products. Sure, Macs became more attractive after Vista came out, but now that MS has a more stable, less buggy OS, I expect the Mac market to slow down a little, especially when it seems like Apple is spending most of their energy on the iPhone, iPod Touch, and the over-hyped iPad. (The might get the iPad right in the next generation, so I’m not dismissing it entirely though.) You have to look at the company behind the product as well. Apple used to be bohemian, cutting-edge,

As for the software, I’m not used to paying for most software except for games, and not always then even. OpenOffice, GIMP, Blender, Battle for Wesnoth, Audacity, Sauerbraten, BRL-CAD… there is a lot of good, free software out there. Some of it’s better than anything written for money since the development community is often far larger than any department at a software factory. “Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.”