ALPHAILA

(This article is updated yearly, to reflect the current state of things.)

STILL, less than 4% of computers worldwide are Macs. (Around 10% in the US, but 4% worldwide.) I dislike that fact, because Macs are just as good as PC’s, in my opinion… Not better, but just as good. [silence, Mac nazis. I’m largely a Mac-user as well, with a big heart for Apple stuff. I’ll explain the “just as good” thing further down.] They also help the world move forward by coming with a huge psychological awesome-factor that, among other things, has prodded companies of all kinds to improve their often lousy designs, and think with a more “futurist” mentality. (Macs even inspire the people who get them to clean their rooms and houses, and generally ‘up’ the visuals of their living space. Completely serious. A Mac in a setup that actually looks like something adds perceived value to a room, and you can feel it.)

Now, on one hand, I’m not entirely convinced that Apple is reaching for total computer domination with the Mac, but I do think you’d have to be completely insane to believe that the people at Apple don’t dream about that every night. As such, I think the Apple guys should have figured out by now that, if they want to supplant PC’s/Windows, and become astronomically huge,  they can’t merely leave the Mac to business-as-usual. Sure, Mac sales have kaboomed in the last few years, but the growth is from tiny into tiny. It has been good for making money, but not for what the people on top at Apple WANT (winning), and not good for the world, which has to deal with VERY little competition outside of the US. : in the US (Mac-land), 1-in-10 computers now sold are Macs. (No, seriously, that’s after the kaboom everyone’s always talking about.)

Looking at Apple’s other products, they truly are making a huge profit. Their other products have grown so much, that Macs now only account for something like 15-20% of their total profits. Apple has now surpassed Microsoft to become the #1 most valuable technology company, and one of the top 3 most profitable companies in the world… mostly thanks to the non-Mac products. But the Macs themselves still do make Apple a nice pile of cash, especially per unit sold. (having ANY spot on this pie-chart equals lots of money). But thinking beyond today’s cash? (and maybe Apple doesn’t think beyond that) If we had an all-knowing Artificial Intelligence, don’t you think it would tell us that it is in fact possible for Macs to reach, say, 50% of all computer sales one day? At least? (never think for a second that a real A.I., with its perfect and complete deathgrip on all that is informational, would find it challenging to find a (natural) way to do something like that… and without having to turn the computers into compromised pieces of junk. The challenge is for us simpletons to find even a shred of that train of thought. Can be rough.)

Mac users who want that 50% have been banging on Apple’s doors for years to change all kinds of things, in order to help Macs become more widely used… Try things like, as I see it, lower their dang prices, since it seems to me that all the world’s computer users: 1) are already fully convinced they’d like to TRY a Mac… but 2) don’t want to pay 2x the price of a PC for one.

-
This pic I made, below, shows what I think most of Apple’s problem is… but reaching a lot further than just Macs, since I firmly believe that price is Apple’s alpha limiter in almost all fields.

If anyone at Apple wants the realm of the Mac to finally expand (all hands raise), the question that arises is whether or not Apple’s plan-of-action is STILL worth pursuing. Notice: Macs haven’t even surpassed 4% global market-share, and we’re marching past 2011 now.

Gartner predicts that, in 4 years (2015), that number will increase to about 5%… an increase of 1%.

…
Versus the world, the Mac literally grows each year from tiny nothingness into tiny nothingness. Oh, but it grows. For some, that’s enough, but I know that the spirit of Apple isn’t about accepting eternal defeat, and living as but a small factor in shadow of Mount Windows. I know that nobody could ever work at Apple, if they thought such a fate was “enough”.

Some people only see money, though, and consider financial success to be everything. The thing is, if you know anything about the history of Apple, you know that money is SO not the main drive… unless you’re an investor, I suppose. (and I don’t necessarily respect the plight of investors.) Rolling in money was a victory won quite a while ago, and, when you think about those on top, at Apple, you realize there certainly has to be more to this. A whole freaking lot more.

There are these huge elements, like winning, and seeing the world embrace your gift to them. Otherwise, there’s losing, and feeling like the world thought your perfection somehow wasn’t enough, or something. I poop around with psychology quite a bit, and know a thing or two about how people think. If you call to mind the one-time college nerds who founded Apple, you just have to guess: it could only be that the prime underlying desires consist of winning, and seeing your deathless gift to the world embraced, and not spat out. And maybe they don’t need EVERYTHING, but life is about happiness, and connection (love from those you’re trying to serve, in this case)… and, simply put, money alone isn’t any of those things. (…especially when you’ve HAD it, for ages.) For Apple’s stake in this, letting the Mac rot in this state of worldwide nonexistence, while Windows laughs off with the cake, would mean forever dealing with the crush of defeat. It’s like living under a cloud… every time one’s mind goes to anything relating to computers, there’s that sense that Windows is everywhere, and Macs are nowhere.

There’s quite a legacy that could be brought back here, changing the world massively. But, before Apple could even get there, there’s all this stuff to deal with…

So, let’s start digging into it…

To begin, remember above there was that link, with the PC vs. Mac pricing. It points out that, at least in 2008:

Average Cost of ‘Desktop’ Computers
PC: $550
Mac: $1,543

Note: I want to make an adjustment here, however, because most lowest-end PC’s don’t come with monitors. So, let’s bump the PC’s up to $700:

PC: $700
Mac: $1,543

And there is NO lack of power in even today’s lowest-end PC’s (excluding those weird, super-mini cases). In fact, Macs are the ones that are routinely blasted by tech reviewers for being underpowered for their price range. Note that they still have better parts than the average PC, but not ones of their same prices. (more on that in a bit)

Even the Mac Mini – the cheapest of which is $600 – will actually cost closer to $800, after you buy its missing screen, speakers, keyboard, and mouse (probably bringing the average Mac’s cost up). There’s nothing “mini” about paying $800 for a computer with half the power of an equally-priced PC… and that $800 is for the lowest-end model only, which is EMBARASSINGLY low-end. The lowest-end 2007 Mac Mini would chug with just one Firefox window open, and barely run Google Earth at all. (how do executives okay a computer that fails two of the most crucial elements that will define the computing experience for the average, non-tech-savvy user?!) I can’t blast Apple for this, because user experience is still a prime goal over there, but I think the pursuit of profits still motivated this nice fail for anyone who bought that Mac Mini. And little toe-stubs like this frequently crop up in Apple’s decisions.

Many of these stubs might just be nits to pick, but I’m reminded of the quote: “Without nitpickers, the world would be full of nits.” And, if you’ve followed any tech news sites, you’ve seen that Apple products have more and more become covered in these nits, and it’s like the world’s tech writers are always scratching.

-
But aren’t Macs worth extra money? For a non-gamer (or someone who doesn’t NEED to use a PC), I personally think they are, but to an EXTENT… an EXTENT. The reason my answer isn’t, “Yes, totally,” is because, well, there are things that people need to be very aware of:

First, this is not 2001-2004. These are NOT the years when most peoples’ perceptions of Mac vs. PC were established… during the spyware HELL that befell Windows XP, during the time when gobs of computers were being sold without enough power to run themselves (not that some Macs haven’t done this), during the worst days of unwanted programs running in peoples’ System Trays.

Mac users need to understand how the times are changing, and what the reality of TODAY is. That may sound like a harsh reality to swallow, but, at the same time, it needs to be understood how much reason there is to be HAPPY about the state of things now…

I say this to Mac fans: your long-time desire to see everyone using a Mac – to have people “see the light” – didn’t develop because you liked Apple’s logo, and had to share its shiny smoothness with everyone… it developed because you found a computer that righted all the wrongs of the world’s PC’s, gave you something good and real to enjoy, which you thought just NEEDED the world’s attention. And so you decided that Apple was worth supporting, because you thought it was the only company that offered a system truly worthy of being peoples’ computers.

Psychology note: in mentioning this Mac fan mentality, I’m not counting in narcissistic people (society’s “evil people”), who, by definition, would prefer to focus on a belief that they have superiority over PC users, not actually caring if anyone “found the light” or not.

But, NOW, things are changing. PC’s are sprinting toward becoming just more Macs… and this is happening in a way that should be incredibly relieving. I mean, let’s face it: at the rate that Macs are growing, you’ll likely be dead or graying before PC’s are overtaken, and what better way to spread everything that you like about Macs than to merely transfer some of their qualities to the systems that people USE?

Again… nothing that anyone treasures is GOING anywhere; it’s just spreading to PC’s now.

-
Going forward, what I’m going to explain is, first, the ways in which PC’s are simply becoming what Mac users wanted in the beginning, then, why I think Apple’s pricing for the iMac isn’t worth supporting nowadays.

Let’s start with some misunderstandings, via questions and answers:

 

Question: I own a PC, and it’s a frustrating, slow, unstable pile of junk. Doesn’t that mean PC’s are still like that?

Answer: No. Not one that you buy today (give or take your usual exceptions, which are certainly present in the Mac world as well). See next…

 

Question: Software-wise, isn’t a Mac more reliable?

Answer: Yes, but to an EXTENT. There are a few important things to consider here, that most people don’t realize:

- Already, the PC’s that you buy today are nowhere near as troublesome as those from several years ago. Vista has become VERY, VERY stable/reliable (unlike when it was first launched), and Windows 7 has been good in this department from day 1. You will find innumerable Windows 7 reviews that say OSX has now found its match. (I believe Vista can boast the same, but its reviews were written in 2007, when it was still in a sad state.) You might still experience less issues on OSX, but not by much anymore.

- Regarding spyware/viruses (I don’t say “virii”), yes, Macs are more reliable… (I don’t think numbers exist for virus/spyware infestations, strangely enough), however:

- The reason for the above advantage is that not enough Windows users know about this and this (yet), and I think word is spreading fast. (the first one there is Microsoft Security Essentials – a free and powerful antivirus/spyware program. The second is a browser plugin, for most modern browsers, that tells you which internet search results are safe, and if you’re about to enter any kind of dangerous site) Windows Vista and Windows 7 both come with anti-spyware installed, and Windows 8, the next version of Windows, is going to come with full Microsoft Security Essentials (so, anti-everything). They’re moving it under the Windows Defender title, and it’s going to mark the end of the virus/spyware insanity that the unprotected go through.

The thing is, anyone using ANY kind of antivirus + anti-spyware is already well off (and the Mac isn’t immune either). In short, the safety-gap between Windows and OSX has been closing very rapidly. A Windows user who does full-system backups onto a secondary internal or external hard drive (on top of using normal antivirus/spyware programs), will be nearly bulletproof. And this applies to Mac users as well, who DO need to protect themselves. Full-system backups, via programs specifically designed for that, are incredibly important for everyone, and remove the need to EVER reformat your hard drive as a means to recover from issues. Read this, sometime…

So, in summary: Are Macs more reliable? Yes, a little… but no more more gaping differences, and the hole that people speak of has largely closed in today’s systems. (Pretty soon, it will probably barely exist at all.)

 

Question: Hardware-wise, isn’t a Mac more reliable, and less prone to breaking down? (not related to software issues; talking about problems like the computer not turning on anymore…)

Answer: While we don’t know the numbers for PC vs. Mac desktop breakdowns, we do have some info on laptops, which might at least give us some hint…

(via SquareTrade, here)

Everyone thinks Macbooks are of vastly superior build quality, compared to regular laptops, but their breakdowns, at least by the end of 2009, were as you see above. I assume desktops couldn’t be THAT much different.

(by the way, it’s INSANE that one in five laptops won’t last 3 years. For crying out loud, all these sadistic companies need to extend their basic warranties…)

 

 

Question: I’ve heard that PC’s are expensive to own and maintain, and that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for a Mac is actually lower. Right?

Answer: Well, in a BUSINESS environment, they’re (usually) cheaper to maintain – like to keep running, and do work on – but we don’t know if that makes their TOTAL cost lower than that of a PC or not. Regarding home AND work, I’ll tell you why I think the answer is no.

For home computers, just ask yourself this question: have you EVER paid anywhere near, say, $500 to fix a PC that wouldn’t turn on? Slim, slim chance. Most local PC repair shops will fix your computer for $50-100, plus parts (which rarely exceed $150… usually much less). Even NOT getting it fixed, and just buying a whole new one ($700 for the broken PC, then another $700 for the new one), probably wouldn’t total you much more than the lowest-end standard iMac. System-builders probably have the highest cost of repairs, but still not even close to $500, unless they use the opportunity to upgrade (hey, upgrade, then it’s almost like you’re getting an entirely new system)… and, if it’s your MAC that won’t boot, and you’ve past your first year without buying one of those expensive warranties, you’re likely buying a whole new one.)

Today, the notion that Macs are cheaper overall mostly rides on a very misquoted survey of 460 business IT administrators (the guys who keep the computers running, in companies). If you want, you can view it here (free registration to view). See, there are some important details:

First, it was only talking about computer costs that COMPANIES have to pay, in a business environment. And second, it was only factoring costs of maintenance – just the maintenance – without any measurement at all of overall cost. (the mention of overall cost is referring to some comments that a few of the surveyed IT people made on the side… and my personal, unbiased guess is that they were Mac guys, pushing their views… but take or leave that part; up to you)

Now, I don’t doubt for a second that Macs MUST be cheaper and easier to keep running than PC’s… but to an EXTENT. And not in all situations (as reflected by the survey).

Here are the numbers:

• 46% of the IT people said Macs were cheaper to maintain. Note: articles everywhere say 60%, but the actual report says 46%. (close to half of those said Macs were 0-20% cheaper. A little more than half said cheaper by 20% or more)
• 29% said both platforms cost the same to maintain.
• 18% said PC’s were cheaper to maintain. (about half of those said 0-20% cheaper, and the other half said 20% or more)
  Note: When counting up the percentages, 46+29+18 only equals 93 (not 100), but that’s the best you can do with the graphs published with the survey. (they’re vague) I don’t know where the 60% came from.

Remember, this is cost of maintenance only. The price of the computers is not factored in.

If it’s hard to crunch what the above actually means, let me just show you my conclusion: the overall cost of PC’s has to be lower for at least 50% of companies… (namely, the ones that said Mac maintenance was either the same or more expensive). Now, for the other half, those companies have some calculation to do… They’d need to ask: does PC maintenance + purchase price overtake a Mac maintenance + purchase price?

Let’s see:
Average PC price-tag = $700
Average Mac price-tag = $1500

Maintenance on the PC would have to be $800 in order for overall cost to surpass the average Mac… and we haven’t even added the Mac’s maintenance yet. (according to the survey, it likely wouldn’t be THAT much lower than the PC, at least on average).

It’s difficult to make the PC look expensive here. To put it simply, I think chances are slim that a PC can overtake a Mac’s overall cost. But there’s still more to the puzzle:

-
What if working on a Mac is FASTER, helping the company make more money by getting more work done? Can THAT fill in the cost difference?

Nobody knows the answer to this. But, I do believe that if a business is using old, run-down, non-IT-maintained PC’s (not today’s computers, with today’s stable, largely trouble-free versions of Windows) people MIGHT be able to get things done, say, 5-10% faster on a Mac. This would also be dependent on what software you’re using, though. (see, if Microsoft Office is all a business uses, well, that’s available on both platforms. And any company with IT is going to have all PC’s in GOOD order, so there aren’t going to be significant kinks in the workflow. Small businesses could suffer more, since they might troubleshoot stuff manually, and could be using old pieces of junk…  including run down old Macs. They might just need to upgrade, so employees can work faster.)

If a business can get things done 5-10% faster on Macs, that might fill in the holes of computer cost… but, then again, I really think a business should only be using TODAY’S computers, given the lost ground they’ve made up for. (Remember, this article isn’t about today’s Macs vs. yesterday’s PC’s. It’s about what you buy today, to tackle today’s debate, over which system is more worth going out to get.)

-

So, final answers:

• At home, I believe it’s safe to say that a PC is usually way, way cheaper. I don’t believe that home maintenance on today’s PC’s brings the Total Cost of Ownership up much. If you own a piece of junk from yesterday, well, that PC came from a different world.
• At work, my best guess is that a PC is USUALLY cheaper, but a business would have to carefully consider a few things in order to figure that out… like:
  1) How much does it cost you to buy one PC vs. one Mac?
  1) Exactly how much does your IT cost for the average Mac vs. PC?
  2) Exactly how fast does work get done on each system? (If Mac is faster, does it make the company enough money to be able to say that using Macs is cheaper?)

 

And now, price-wise, let’s dig into how things are changing…

Let’s start with gaming:
On a PC, keeping up with the latest games is cheaper than it has EVER been… because, now, any PC that has at least a dual-core processor, and 3gb RAM, will likely only need a $100-200 video card upgrade. And this could last 2-4 years now, especially if you don’t NEED to play the latest games at max settings. (Here’s why lower settings aren’t a big deal anymore, at least in most cases. Leave the resolution high, and just lower everything else.)

Here’s a small illustration of that, showing one of the highest-end-always game series, Call of Duty:

2007

(from IGN) – Modern Warfare

2011

Modern Warfare 3

 

Game graphics aren’t bounding forward at the pace that they once did. Several reasons for that include:
- For game studios, it’s simply getting too expensive to take new games so far ahead.
- Most PC games are also developed for weaker consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3), so, those act as a natural anchor. (though not as much as you might think, if you know how weak a console is…)
- Near photorealism has been reached, and, visually, nobody really CARES what comes next. (We want depth, and more/better interaction with the world… but few companies seem intent on delivering that, except in terms of how much more stuff reacts to violence.)
- Some companies are realizing that simply having superior art can bring visuals forward, without necessarily requiring extra computing power.
- Companies are realizing that lower-end graphics are simply good enough to carry many games. Having weaker graphics means less money required, and tons more people have computers that can run them.

 

Eventually, I was getting somewhere with that… let’s see if I can remember. Oh:
Like a PC, a desktop iMac will carry a gamer for longer than ever before… but, when it comes time to upgrade, you aren’t just popping in a $100-200 video card. You’re replacing the whole thing… for $1000-2000.

We have to be really honest with ourselves: we don’t freaking need to do that.

-
Moving on:
$1,000 will allow you to build TWO ‘Crysis 2’-capable PC’s, now.

Apple has stated before, “We don’t know how to make a $500 computer that isn’t a piece of junk.” (-Steve Jobs in a 2008 conference call for Apple investors) Unfortunately, Apple seems to be the only computer-maker in the WORLD that can’t figure this out. Today – which, to be fair, isn’t 2008 – they could even just request a computer from a company that already makes a cheap, Mac-like non-piece-of-junk, then put OSX on it. (note: a hacked version of OSX can already run on a full-fledged PC.)

Let’s see what we can do:

If you paint this $600, 23” Dell white, and flatten its little grooves, you’ve got a capable little iMac, lacking only in gaming (ironically). Compare designs. It’s already possible to even install OSX86 on it, as-is, and dual-boot Windows/OSX.

We’ve also got this $500, 20” HP, below, which is the same story as the Dell…

           

 

-

Next, Apple seems to orient Macs so that they’re only in reach of those with money (in defiance of today’s economy). I like the way late-night TV host David Letterman put it (clip): “…frankly, I’m a little sick and fed up with the Apple people, because, first of all, nobody’s got any money…”

And, outside of the world’s few rich places, there’s NOTHING to compete with PC’s. This is very important. If Apple were a mega-player in the computer market, the pressure from the competition would fuel the fires of progress all over the world. The industry needs this badly, especially in developing countries, where computers are still so expensive.

Similar to that, we have another colossal problem in the world, which we “rich” westerners conveniently ignore: only 1 in 7 people on Earth have access to a computer… and, when they do, it’s mostly through work. At home, only 5% of households have at least 1 computer… and Apple’s approach does NOTHING to help get ANY kind of technology into these non-rich peoples’ hands. (Not even most Americans can afford Apple’s ways. America is 4.5% of the world population… and only a fraction of those people will even consider paying for a Mac.) It’s bothersome when you know that everything Apple sells seems to have a HUGE profit-margin vs. the cost of making it.

Understanding this area is tricky, because there are multiple factors at play. On one hand, there are signs here and there that Apple too ONLY cares about money… like when you walk into an Apple store, and see the prices of iPod and iPhone accessories. (You can get slightly lesser-grade stuff on Amazon for a FRACTION of the price.) So, that’s on one hand. On the other hand, the Mac Mini was first introduced at $500, seemingly in reach of most computer shoppers… just that it never really went anywhere. I think people who MUST have “the Mac experience” feel they need a legit, real Mac, and/or realize that they’ll still be paying a load of money, after they buy the screen/keyboard/mouse/speakers. I bought a Mac Mini in 2007, when the price went up to $600, and it was still totaled around about $850 after buying the missing parts. Let me also just complain real quick how very, very slow and unconvincing it was. (Upgrading the RAM to 2GB helped, but “slow” was still the name of the game.) I remember even 2009’s Mac Mini started at 1GB of RAM (!), with a slow, 120GB hard drive… and earned some raps like this.

Here’s a question I ask: if the price of a gorgeous, “real” iMac had always been dead-center mainstream, what non-gamer today WOULDN’T have one? (and, if more people used Macs, more games would be designed to run on them, perhaps solving the non-gamer issue)

(speaking of games, if Apple is so concerned with games not being made for Mac right now, they could merely collect $500 million, even from just among the board members (oh, where EVER are they going to get that money?) and say to anyone making games, “Hey, we’ll give you EVERYTHING you need to hire a staff to port your games to Mac… past games, present games, future – everything.”

Today, a blockbuster game’s entire budget often tops out around $20 million. Right now, at this very moment, Steve Jobs alone could use $1 billion out of his total 8 to start a game-producing COUNTRY.)

-
Aside from those who have money to spare, one of the only groups of people that Apple has remaining are those who have simply been seduced and deceived into believing that a Mac will unrealistically inject happiness into their lives. (quick note: read this if you’re confused about why I say “deceived”. Though I like Macs, and though they are good computers, they still ride a huge wave of myth) When people believe that something will make them happy like this, they can make crazy buys. Have you ever known someone who had ZERO money, yet went out and bought something stupidly expensive? Well, that person fell in love with that thing… with actual non-romantic, flowery feelings. Logic gave way to the understanding that the item would do this special thing for them: make them happy.

To a degree, the promise of real happiness can bypass an empty wallet… and it can be like that with Macs. Just look at how popular Macbooks are with college students. These are people who are often broke, but have 2 factors riding on their minds:

1: They believe that a Mac will satisfy their life-long craving for a PC that “just works”, and also come with a magical kick that makes them happy.
2: They’ve grown up on the now-obsolete idea that a new Windows PC will just be a slow, troublesome piece of junk, that will soon bring back the nightmares that make them UNhappy.

Unfortunately, the happiness that comes from things you can buy is usually very temporary… and “things”, in and of themselves, aren’t a means to happiness. (even a rich person with an entire movie theater in his house might easily still feel like he doesn’t have a thing. If he has PEOPLE, however, who actually love and stand by him – who don’t occupy that room in a shallow “let’s party” context – he may truly be the richest person around…)

To my observation, materialism is mostly an illusion-powered world. You may feel genuine happiness in the first couple days of buying something, but then your mind normalizes it. This is a psychological function that MUST happen, to avoid you becoming addicted to mass volumes of “things”. (imagine how distant and detached everyone would become if, instead of getting used to all the mere things in life, we became attached to them, and couldn’t peel ourselves away. THAT is why we have to get over things; to maintain our connection to humanity.) Similarly, a week after buying a Mac, you’re likely over the magic. The flowery feelings get replaced by the whatever promise lies in the computer tasks that you’re actually going to do… (and, if there is no promise, the Mac becomes a fancy paper-weight). (“promise” is a really big concept in human happiness, and makes up a large part of what we like about material things. There’s promise that we’ll find enjoyment in something, even if we don’t understand how yet.)

 

-
[The following section has been updated heavily for 2011’s iMacs, which are quite different from 2010’s. To see the 2010 section, click here.]

Another thing I’m tired of hearing is that Apple prices its standard iMacs like this because they’re absolutely top-of-the-line, so, you’re getting what you pay for. That’s… not the case.

Here’s the deal:
Desktop iMacs spank other all-in-ones, especially with their video cards, but, for what you’re PAYING, they can’t even compare to the value you get with regular, box PC’s. But you may ask: should an iMac be compared with a non-all-in-one PC? I think yes, because the vast majority of computer-shoppers likely aren’t go to the store with any demands whatsoever on what shape their computer has to be… So, if those people are going to be considering iMacs alongside regular box PC’s, you have to compare them.

Let’s test power and value here. We’ll do a price war, and see what kinds of computers you can configure on HP and Dell’s websites, versus the desktop iMacs… (HP and Dell are as “regular” computer companies as you can get.) Unfortunately, this is going to hurt anyone who has recently bought an iMac.

Price War (high-end iMac)

Apple iMac 27”	HP Pavilion Elite HPE-h8z
Intel Core i5-2400 quad-core	AMD FX-8100 eight-core
AMD Radeon HD 6970M, 1gb	nVidia GeForce GT 550 Ti, 1gb
27” screen	Dual 23” screens
4gb RAM	8gb RAM
1TB Hard Drive	1.5TB Hard Drive
DVD Burner	DVD Burner
Really Nice Wireless KB/Mouse	Really Nice Wireless KB/Mouse
Built-in Speakers	5.1 Surround w’ Subwoofer
Total: $2,000 (before tax)	Total: $1,480 (before tax)

For those who don’t follow computer parts closely, the iMac basically gets spanked.

A couple things to understand:
- Processors: No benchmarks are out for the AMD yet, but expect it to be at least a little faster. By the way, ignore number of cores. That doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about speed.
- Video Cards: The iMac’s AMD 6970 is a lot more powerful. (Bear in mind that the nVidia GTX 550 Ti is still extremely sufficient for almost all games, though. By the way, don’t picture the HP doing dual-screen GAMING. You need triple-screen for most multi-monitor gaming.)
- Screens: In the pictures above, the 23” screens look small compared to the 27”, but, for a monitor, 23” is already way huge. 27” is just enormously huge… It’s like working on a (very sharp) TV.
- RAM/Hard Drive: Most people don’t NEED more than the iMac’s RAM or hard drive, but, of course, there’s the big point to make here about how much you’re paying for, versus how much you’re getting.

 

Price War (entry-level iMac)

Apple iMac 21.5”	HP Pavilion Elite HPE-h8z
Intel Core i5-2400S quad-core	AMD FX-8100 eight-core
AMD Radeon HD 6750M, 512mb	nVidia GeForce GT 550 Ti, 1gb
21.5” screen	23” screen
4gb RAM	8gb RAM
500gb Hard Drive	1.5TB Hard Drive
DVD Burner	DVD Burner
Really Nice Wireless KB/Mouse	Wired KB/Mouse (really nice)
Built-in Speakers	2.1 Speakers w’ Subwoofer
Total: $1,200 (before tax)	Total: $1,220 (before tax)

This one isn’t cremation with burial-at-sea, but still, look at that. (By the way, the HP starts out with the same base model as before, just with a different configuration.)

Notes
- Processors: No benchmarks are out for the AMD yet, but expect at least a little faster.
- Video Cards: The HP’s nVidia card is about 25% faster.

Now, let’s try the Mac Mini:

Price War (entry-level Mac Mini)

(Like I said above, it isn’t necessary to compare a computer with one of its
exact same shape, but we’ll try it anyway.)

Mac Mini	Dell Zino HD ($400 model – update: discontinued)
Intel Core i5-2410M dual-core	AMD Athlon II X2 P360, dual-core
Intel HD Graphics 3000 (uses the system’s RAM)	ATI Radeon 4250 (uses the system’s RAM)
(no screen)	(no screen)
2gb RAM	4gb RAM
500gb Hard Drive	1TB Hard Drive
(no disc drive)	DVD Burner
(no keyboard/mouse)	Wired KB/Mouse
Built-in Speakers	Built-in Speakers
Total: $600 (before tax)	Total: $400 (before tax)

After buying the missing parts, you’re looking at:
Mac Mini: $800
Zino HD: $580
(Remember, the Zino doesn’t need a new mouse or keyboard, so, less is tacked onto its price. The final prices are assuming: $150 screen, $15 keyboard, $10 mouse, and $30 2.1 speakers with okay subwoofer.)

Notes
- Processors & Video Cards: The Mac Mini’s are about 2x faster.

 

What about MacBooks?
Same story, but let Microsoft’s “Do The Math” site show you those comparisons. It’s a bunch of price-wars, like these here, minus video cards (?).

 

-
Now, just make sure you don’t walk away from this with the understanding that Macs are SLOW. Most new computers haven’t been slow for a couple years now, excluding a couple oddball micro-PC’s, and some netbooks (<read that carefully. I didn’t say NOTEbooks). Just about any new or almost new system can do all your ordinary tasks with ease. The issue is that Macs are just WAY overpriced for how much computer you’re getting.

This is especially bad for people who don’t have much money, but think that paying up is the only way to escape the hell of PC’s (and they want that magical happiness thing). You’ve also got the people who really need power, and think they need to pay top-dollar for that, and don’t realize they can get the same or better, for a lot less.

-
Having gone over all that, see this video below, where we’ll consider one last piece of food for thought:

 

Details about the above computer (a blog post, on my personal site, also with a video correction)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
- All Alphaila articles can be re-posted and sent around freely, without permission. See FAQ page.
- Get my free wallpaper pack   |   About the author