The Mac Tax

Sabalo

I just wrapped up the researching and the purchasing of two new laptops. During the course of research, I considered Apple products and I began to wonder... is the "Mac Tax" a real thing, or is it one of those technology myths?

I just wrapped up my (admittedly cursory) investigation... when I'm done compiling the data and coming to my conclusions, I'll post them!

Anyone care to hypothesize?

Zartanasaurus

A quick google search revealed that it's a reference to paying more for the Mac brand vs an equivalent competitor. Apple has significant brand equity. Nothing unusual about that. Microsoft has it too. People are willing to pay $200 for a Windows OS v getting Linux for free.

Sabalo

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

A quick google search revealed that it's a reference to paying more for the Mac brand vs an equivalent competitor. Apple has significant brand equity. Nothing unusual about that. Microsoft has it too. People are willing to pay $200 for a Windows OS v getting Linux for free.

I know what it means.

The question is whether or not Apple actually charges more for the same hardware, as simple as that. I saw some preliminary data that seemed to suggest otherwise when I was hunting for my laptop this past week.

If there is no price difference, it would be nice to know that the perception does not rflect the reality. If there is, then we can ask what value Apple adds, and whether we (as individuals) feel that the difference in price warrants the disparity.

Soulless & Feral: The Mythical Mac Tax

I did actually sit down to compare. It is hardly a long term test or a flawless experiment, but I think it reflects the market more or less accurately.

stuh84

Sabalo wrote: »

If there is, then we can ask what value Apple adds, and whether we (as individuals) feel that the difference in price warrants the disparity.

OS X. Nothing more to it

You are paying to have OS X as an OS. It doesn't suit everyone, but for me it does, so I'm more than happy to pay more to get the OS i want.

ehnde

No question about it, there is a Mac Tax. Comparable pc hardware with Windows preinstalled is considerably cheaper. Most of the time I feel it is harder for computer savvy individuals to justify the additional cost of a Mac. However, I feel that more choices are always a better thing and many people fall in love with the Mac experience.

When you buy a Mac, you're not just buying the hardware - it's the operating system as well. The OSX UI seems slicker to me than Windows 7 (yeah, arguable point). But the real kicker with OSX is that it is optimized for the hardware it runs on. Windows is meant to run on a wide variety of hardware. Windows does it's job well, but most people would agree that OSX "feels" snappier.

I've never bought a Mac. Came close several times....I'd save up the money (say $1200) then look at comparable PCs. They'd be maybe $300 or even $400 less. I just couldn't do it. I'm not bashing Macs, I really adore them and intend to own one some day.

Another observation: I.T. companies that offer a more "complete package" seem to be able to justify a higher cost and generally appear to do better. Consumers don't like piecing things together.

stuh84 wrote: »

OS X. Nothing more to it

You are paying to have OS X as an OS. It doesn't suit everyone, but for me it does, so I'm more than happy to pay more to get the OS i want.

Sorry, but I must disagree. The hardware is beautifully designed. If you have a Mac notebook in, say, a coffee shop, people notice. Also does any other notebook manufacturer have the magnetic power connectors?

xenodamus

ehnde wrote: »

Also does any other notebook manufacturer have the magnetic power connectors?

Yea, those are pretty awesome. I wish every laptop manufacturer would adopt them. Broken power connectors was the #1 laptop hardware issue we fixed when I worked in a PC Repair shop.

CSCOnoob

The question is whether or not Apple actually charges more for the same hardware, as simple as that. I saw some preliminary data that seemed to suggest otherwise when I was hunting for my laptop this past week.

For the 13" MB and MBPs, I would say yes - at least when I was researching. When I bought my highest end model of 15" MBP, there was no laptop out there that weighed less and thin as MBP. HP Envy was the closest competitor at that time but it didn't include an internal CD/DVD which was kind of important to me. It had better specs (customized to what I want) nonetheless but I've also considered what I was getting with MBP, which I put some value to it.

eMeS

It's foolish and short-sighted to look at an up-front difference in price as a "tax". It's simply not a tax, and it also focus on the short-term price vs. the long-term cost-benefit. Additionally it ignores several key factors that affect the differences between a Mac and a Wintel laptop:

1 - Many, dare I say most, people are in some way eligible for significant discounts on Apple equipment. Anyone's inability or laziness when it comes to understanding their eligibility for and finding these discounts does mean that the price difference is suddenly a tax.

2 - Every Mac laptop I've owned has had roughly double the lifespan of an equivalent Wintel laptop. Again, focusing on the up front cost is short-sighted, as it does not consider how quickly one will need to purchase their next laptop.

3 - Apple products have a higher resale value. Every time I've upgraded since switching to Macs I've been able to sell my old equipment for a significant amount. In fact, I just recently did this.

Products are aimed towards specific markets. A price difference between markets is not a tax, it is a representation of demand that people in that specific market have for a product. It's why Kias are less expensive than Porsches. While Apple and Wintel markets might overlap in some areas, largely they target different market segments.

MS

varelg

Sabalo wrote: »

Anyone care to hypothesize?

Here's a hypothesis to consider:
Microsoft starts building its OWN laptops and slaps anyone who ATTEMPTS to install Windows on anything other than MS hardware with a lawsuit that would set that individual straight into homelessness. How's that for a Microsoft tax?
However slick and cool- looking, Mac is just another option when buying a computer: double the price=double the performance?

ehnde wrote: »

Sorry, but I must disagree. The hardware is beautifully designed. If you have a Mac notebook in, say, a coffee shop, people notice. Also does any other notebook manufacturer have the magnetic power connectors?

Really? Nicer looking = better performance?

stuh84

ehnde wrote: »

Sorry, but I must disagree. The hardware is beautifully designed. If you have a Mac notebook in, say, a coffee shop, people notice. Also does any other notebook manufacturer have the magnetic power connectors?

I don't take my Macs to coffee shops, because I dont like coffee and I dont use them to show off, the only reason I bought them was for the OS.

Yes, the hardware is well designed, but its mostly a pretty case with close to off-the-shelf components ever since they gave up the PowerPC architecture.

There are just as well designed PC laptops and desktops nowadays, so design to me is a bit of a moot point.

Sabalo

A couple of notes:

I compared hardware to hardware, and the larger Macs were absolutely anemic compared to the PC equivalents. If OS X is worth $1000 to you, then I say go with the Mac. The operating system is a non-issue to me, as I can VM anything I absolutely NEED to run.

There is no one killer app on OS X I need to run.

The parts are, more or less, identical between the Intel based Macs and the Intel based PCs. So failure is a matter of chance, anymore.

Given equal builds, the 13" is a good deal. 15" and 17", not so much. Unless, of course, OS X, the "Apple Experience," and the superior battery life trump additional performance, lower cost, and greater flexibility. It is a personal choice... but the Mac, hardware-wise, is not a good deal at the 15" / 17" screen size.

Also!

My EON 15 is most definitely NOT a Kia. Comparing it to a Mac is more like comparing a Formula One race car to a mid-level Lexus. The Lexus is pretty and has a nice interior, but the Formula One is a pure performance machine... and sucks up the fuel to make that work. It is a monster, meant for monster tasks...

...and it costs about the same as that Lexus.

Webmaster

If you actually compare the prices for Snow Leopard and Windows, for both full versions and upgrades you'll see that in both cases OS X is a lot cheaper so OS X certainly doesn't explain the price difference. Last upgrade to Snow Leopard cost me only $30.

As eMeS mentioned, Apple products have a higher resale value. And it's quite a big difference too. Buy a Mac now, sell it in two years and you can still buy a new wintel laptop without adding money.

jahsoul

I use all 3 OS's in my house (Macbook Pro 15" with Boot Camp partition and my desktop is running Linux/Windows &) and to be honest, all are comparable. I don't really get anything out of OSX (but Logic, one of the best DAWs available) but some people swear by it. Everything (build and software) has it's problem. Google search Superdrive and see the issues people are having with their Macbook reading DVD's. Would I buy another Mac? Only if I could afford an 8 core Mac Pro...

nel

i have to say i have a new mbp 13 inch and i love it. first time ive owned a mac too. Once you get used to the differences, find equivalent software for your needs, learning the "mac way" most people will love it. OSx is smooth as ice. i blame my iphone for my transition

its not everyone's cup of tea but i would find it hard to go back to a wintel laptop for overall usage and experience for personal use. screw it i'll even be happy to fork out the extra money for that privilege . and at the end of the day if someone doesnt like something then obviously dont buy it.

Alot of people compare wintel laptops to mac purely on hardware but in my opinion something like a HP envy is more like a PC mac equivalent in terms of overall product, damn it even looks exactly the same. That too comes with a high retail price.

Forsaken_GA

We were talking about this at work the other day, and one of the Linux admins was like 'If you need something easy and can't work on the box yourself, that's sad'.

So I calmly explained that I'm more than happy to work on and fix boxes, but when I go home after messing with crap at work all day, I don't want to have to work and fix my own stuff. I want it to just work. And that's what my mac does

jahsoul

I must be out the loop because my Linux and Windows runs flawlessly. :-/

I just thought about it. I have my uses set out

Mac - Logic Pro (I swear, if it wasn't for this one application, all music would be done on Windows. If anyone is into music production, this is a easy choice. I drunk the kool-aid and understand now)

Windows- Zune and PC Study Bible

Ubuntu - Everything else...lol

RobertKaucher

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

We were talking about this at work the other day, and one of the Linux admins was like 'If you need something easy and can't work on the box yourself, that's sad'.

So I calmly explained that I'm more than happy to work on and fix boxes, but when I go home after messing with crap at work all day, I don't want to have to work and fix my own stuff. I want it to just work. And that's what my mac does

Ok, end users - I could get it. But people on this forum?

What the hell are you guys doing to your Windows boxes that they do not work? I mean come on. I've got a Pentium dual core with Win 7 and 2 GB RAM and it does everything I want. Visual Studio, it runs SharePoint, SQL Server, Word, etc. I install what I want to and it works just fine. If you like OS X, fine. But I'm not sure why Windows doesn't just work...

ehnde

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

We were talking about this at work the other day, and one of the Linux admins was like 'If you need something easy and can't work on the box yourself, that's sad'.

So I calmly explained that I'm more than happy to work on and fix boxes, but when I go home after messing with crap at work all day, I don't want to have to work and fix my own stuff. I want it to just work. And that's what my mac does

OSX does seem to have many of the features that Linux has that are lacking in Windows. But your explanation is exactly why every time a relative/friend sees some new news article about Linux and says "hey, can you install that for me?" I try to discourage them (my friends know me as the linux guy) not because I don't want them to try it, but because I know it'll be a much bigger time commitment on my part to help them learn to use linux.

I don't take my Macs to coffee shops, because I dont like coffee and I dont use them to show off, the only reason I bought them was for the OS.

I wasn't trying to make a point about coffee. A macbook is a functional work of art. They are built as simply as possible and are very durable. That is a beautiful thing.

thehourman

I am thinking of getting Macbook, just for doing digital arts.
I can do it on PC, but from what I heard even my older brother told me that Photoshop runs great on MACs.

mikedisd2

RobertKaucher wrote: »

What the hell are you guys doing to your Windows boxes that they do not work? I mean come on. I've got a Pentium dual core with Win 7 and 2 GB RAM and it does everything I want. Visual Studio, it runs SharePoint, SQL Server, Word, etc. I install what I want to and it works just fine. If you like OS X, fine. But I'm not sure why Windows doesn't just work...

I've had a few small issues with device drivers on W7. Not Windows' fault of course but I share the sentiments; it's crap I don't want to deal with at home.

BTW, this comment has no relevance to the original topic, I'm totally indifferent to Apple.

docrice

I'll add my few cents since I think I'm well-rounded in the OS area. I'm primarily a Windows guy using ThinkPads for XP, Vista, and 7, as well as Linux. My OS builds never crash unless its due to a buggy app, bad driver, defective hardware, or intentional abuse. I also just bought a MacBook and I did this for a number of reasons.

First, I wanted something different from Windows as that's all I've been mostly using for over a decade, which either meant I load up Linux or go with OS X. I also wanted a high-resolution display for my work, and if you compare the high-end Lenovos and Dells which provide that equivalent feature, the price comparison wasn't that much different. I think this is partially because I was looking at the display capability but also because the nicer series of machines from any company tend to use better-grade components. I also swapped in an SSD as well as maxed the memory out. Even then, the price comparison between Apple vs. Windows-based machines at the hardware level tend to be in the same ballpark.

With Apple, I believe some people are paying for a (more) seamless experience with their computing environment. You could argue that with the proper configuration, Windows can provide the same. In my opinion, Windows is over-designed for the home user with the built-in capabilities for managed business environments. There's unfortunately no way to officially remove these components (Remote Procedure Call comes to mind). I'll grant you that there are some things in an OS X install which I would tweak as well. The NSA configuration guide is a good reference.

I think up-front, it's easy to perceive Apple products as having a price premium. The higher-end you go with the models / options, the price wars with PCs seem to start leveling out. Not quite so at the low-end as there seems to be a more painful entry-point, price-wise. There are some things about a MacBook which feels more elegant in its design and OS / hardware integration. OS X for me feels more polished as an interactive experience, but in the grand scheme of things these are really minor differences. Functionally, it all comes down to your applied use of the machine. I primarily bought mine as a portable workstation to run virtual machines for study, GNS3 labs, and lots of traffic analysis work (which is where the 1920x1200 resolution really helps to see more at once).

From what I saw on Apple's MacBook line, they only have one "budget" model, although it's still priced higher than the low-ends from other companies (which I didn't really compare hardware specs to). Also, there probably aren't many Lenovo or Dell models which have something similar to a machined-aluminum casing (for which, by the way, you can read about some of the horror stories online in Apple's forums). The newer Latitudes do feel nice though. ThinkPads, while they're my Windows notebook hardware platform of choice, still feel plastic unless I'm touching just the display cover.

From a support perspective, I don't think AppleCare is all that much better than others, at least in my very limited experience. Like any company, it's a hit-or-miss. On day one I experienced a problem which Apple support mis-diagnosed as a hardware issue but I eventually fixed myself (re-installed the OS). It didn't inspire a lot of confidence.

There's also the "Microsoft tax" to consider. Can you actually buy a machine from the big-name vendors without a Microsoft OS charge? Maybe from some of the smaller players, but this doesn't seem to be an option I can bypass these days from Lenovo or Dell, unless you buy a desktop-like machine which is technically categorized as a low-end server class. But with PC vendors, you also get much more order-time configuration choices. With Apple, you're very limited on choosing exactly what components go into your MacBook. You get simplicity / (probably) well-tested component matching vs. greater hardware flexibility and price-tweaking.

Getting to the root of the OP's question, I think from a marketing perspective Apple knows it has a loyal audience who will gladly pay for the so-called superior ownership experience. Sure, I think OS X runs smoother from a superficial end-user point of view, and I think the hardware is well-packaged and merged well with the OS for a tighter experience (plus that it's Unix / BSD-based), but is it worth it for technical folks like us? I wouldn't necessarily say so. I won't be retiring my ThinkPads anytime soon, that's for sure. And given Apple's method (or lack) of acknowledging security issues in their products, I run anti-virus on my system regardless of what a lot of Mac users may claim about the impermeability of OS X.

But I will say that OS X is a refreshing experience in its own ways and I don't regret it one bit.

(Crap, there I go again writing a long post...)

Forsaken_GA

RobertKaucher wrote: »

Ok, end users - I could get it. But people on this forum?

I get paid very well to fix things while I'm at work. Spending that time fixing my own crap is not a good return. And honestly, we're all still end users. Just because I can rip apart a computer or a network or whatever and put it back together again better than it was doesn't mean that sometimes I don't want to sit down and fire up the XBox and geek out.

What the hell are you guys doing to your Windows boxes that they do not work? I mean come on. I've got a Pentium dual core with Win 7 and 2 GB RAM and it does everything I want. Visual Studio, it runs SharePoint, SQL Server, Word, etc. I install what I want to and it works just fine. If you like OS X, fine. But I'm not sure why Windows doesn't just work...

Let's see... device drivers that cause conflicts, third party packages that need constantly updating (have you seen how many security patches Adobe has been shunting out these last few months?), constant OS updates (always annoying as hell for me, since it normally involves a reboot, don't know if that's changed with vista/7 since I still use XP when I do use windows), software which gives you cryptic ass install errors sometimes (Cisco VPN Client and vSphere client come IMMEDIATELY to mind). And no freaking registry hacking.

Windows may just work if you let it do it's thing, but if you're a power user, it requires a little more effort for maintenance. With OS X, installing programs are usually as simple as 'drag the icon into the folder'. Most of my software updates don't require a reboot, and I don't crash nearly as often as I'm used to under windows. OS X is, for me, hassle free, and I value my free time, so that's important to me.

I personally don't care what other folks use. I believe you use the best tool for the job, and different people work in different ways. I'm always mildly amused at the folks who want to criticize Mac users that the only real issue is price. I'm perfectly ok with paying the premium for the tool I consider best.

Sabalo

I'm perfectly ok with paying the premium for the tool I consider best.

As am I... and if we're considering it a tool (heh) we have to choose the tool that works best for us.

I didn't address the OS because quite honestly, the OS issue is a wash with me. I can Windows 7 and function. I could use Linux and function with VMs where Linux did not work for what I wanted. I can use OS X and function with VMs where OS X does not work.

I actually, honestly considered a Mac this time around. The 13" model -is- a good deal at the price point, and were it (or any) 13" capable of providing the power I (occasionally) need, I would have gone with either the Mac or the Sony Z. In the 15" range though, I the value was just not there for a power user.

Also consider I tend to use my personal machine at work too, so there IS that.

---

I discounted the hard-to-quantify factors like resale value, OS sexiness, aesthetic, and "experience" because those do not have concrete values. I'm of the opinion that the best OS is the one that does not get in my way. You may believe that the best OS is the one that is tweaked for your specific hardware. I may think aluminum cases look boring, and you mind find it a work of modern art.

We can both agree, though, that a high-end quad core is better than a mid-range dual core in just about every way. We can both agree that if offered 4gb of RAM or 8gb of RAM of the same quality and the same speed, we'd take the 8gb. And given the choice of a medicore video card or a good video card, we'd both choose the good one.

The point was not to bash Apple so much as to ask the question "how much extra is the Mac Experience costing people?" At the low end? Nearly nothing! At the high end, enough to buy an extra machine.

It is a personal decision on whether that experience is worth the extra outlay.

Can you actually buy a machine from the big-name vendors without a Microsoft OS charge? Maybe from some of the smaller players, but this doesn't seem to be an option I can bypass these days from Lenovo or Dell, unless you buy a desktop-like machine which is technically categorized as a low-end server class.

To be fair, this also applies to Apple. You cannot get an Apple machine without that OS either, I suspect... perhaps if you wanted to simply transfer your previous license?

RobertKaucher

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I personally don't care what other folks use. I believe you use the best tool for the job, and different people work in different ways. I'm always mildly amused at the folks who want to criticize Mac users that the only real issue is price. I'm perfectly ok with paying the premium for the tool I consider best.

No, no. I agree totally. Two very good friends of mine are both exceptional computer techs and dedicated Mac users. I just personally don't see this stuff so much as an issue.

I think this sort of personal preference goes beyond what we can naturally express and frequently gets justified in reverse. Meaning we look for reasons to justify the choices we have made in order to explain their correctness post hoc; which is fine. That’s normal human behavior. Except in my test environments, I just don’t see these kinds of issues. And I expect them in my test environments because I am constantly pushing things in ways that are atypical. And I’m also a heavy VMware user.

The facts for me, though, are simple. I see no point in switching to a Mac as I am a Windows Admin and “Developer” so having a system I am unable to use my tools on is just foolish. Sure there is Fusion and other tools, but what’s the point? I increase complexity and cost. No thank you. Back when I worked weekends at the Geek Squad I had a ton of exposure to Macs and think they are great. But I don’t see Windows as a crash or virus waiting to happen. As I’ve said before, I don’t even use security software anymore other than what is preconfigured on my clean install of Win 7 Enterprise.


In the days of Windows XP MS learned a valuable lesson that Apple knew from the start: the most important job of the OS is to protect the user from the developer. Since XP SP 2 it has been harder and harder for devs to muck up a system (and I include writers of viruses in this as well). My personal opinion of the argument that “Windows crashes” is just that it is dated. I aint tryin’ to convert you to my religion, ‘cause I aint got one.

tpatt100

I think you can in a way compare this to cars, people can buy cars that perform similarly but pay extra for certain features. Paying a lot for rims to me seems lame but to some people they pay thousands of dollars for fancy rims. They do the same exact thing as other rims but looks matter more for some.

I stopped trying to justify my buying a Mac laptop years ago, I only buy macs for my wife since she prefers that OS. No big deal to me, use what you want to use. I buy new Windows machines every couple of years, I can't justify paying extra for Apple computers since I like to upgrade stuff. I would love a Mac mini for my desktop to do everyday stuff on and tighten up my Win7 machine strictly for gaming.

tbgree00

I really enjoy my iMac. I find the OS very refreshing and easy to work with once I turned on right click. I rarely if ever run into an instance where I can't do something. I have VMware Fusion installed with an XP machine for those tasks. I also use Windows 7 on the rest of my fleet of computers. I like it fine but don't really have the best hardware to show off all it can do.

Did I pay extra for the iMac than I would have for a spec for spec Dell desktop? Yes I did. I got this one for 1k, I could have smoked it in performance with a Dell for that price. It was worth it to me, my wife really likes it, and it becomes a converstation piece when we have guests over. I don't do PC games so I don't need the extra power.

Forsaken_GA

Sabalo wrote: »

I discounted the hard-to-quantify factors like resale value, OS sexiness, aesthetic, and "experience" because those do not have concrete values. I'm of the opinion that the best OS is the one that does not get in my way. You may believe that the best OS is the one that is tweaked for your specific hardware. I may think aluminum cases look boring, and you mind find it a work of modern art.

We can both agree, though, that a high-end quad core is better than a mid-range dual core in just about every way. We can both agree that if offered 4gb of RAM or 8gb of RAM of the same quality and the same speed, we'd take the 8gb. And given the choice of a medicore video card or a good video card, we'd both choose the good one.

Well, you seem to be pretty focused on the hardware and the value of the components as relates to other parts.

I'm not a Mac user because I like the *** appeal of them. It actually annoys me when I'm out working in public and people stop and gawk, or worse yet, ask me questions about the mac. It was kind of fun for 5 minutes when my mom gushed over the apple lighting up on the back, but that was about it. I'm a mac user because I like OS X. For me, it's the best fusion I've found of pretty GUI and powerful tools under the hood (Ubuntu comes close, really close, but lacks in a few key areas). That, combined with the fact that I can trust my laptop to not crash on a regular basis and cause me relatively little grief in the way of maintenance all make the Apple "experience" very important to me. I sure can put a concrete value on it - couple hundred bucks over 2 grand.

Devilsbane

Haven't you guys seen line 83b on your income taxes? Buying a MAC subtracts $800 from your refund.

Forsaken_GA

RobertKaucher wrote: »

The facts for me, though, are simple. I see no point in switching to a Mac as I am a Windows Admin and “Developer” so having a system I am unable to use my tools on is just foolish. Sure there is Fusion and other tools, but what’s the point? I increase complexity and cost. No thank you. Back when I worked weekends at the Geek Squad I had a ton of exposure to Macs and think they are great. But I don’t see Windows as a crash or virus waiting to happen. As I’ve said before, I don’t even use security software anymore other than what is preconfigured on my clean install of Win 7 Enterprise.

See, I think that's perfectly valid. You've decided what works best for you, and I applaud that. I don't really consider myself anti-Windows, I'm not on a crusade to get it eliminated from the marketplace or anything, I just don't like working with it. At all. I'm most comfortable (and therefore effective) with OS X and pretty much any form of Unix in the world except Solaris. For me personally, the only value windows has had was as a gaming platform, and that became less important when I was heavily playing World of Warcraft, since Blizzard puts out Mac native clients. It's also been useful at work for a few things like the vSphere client (and Outlook, I guess, since we insist on using Exchange, and I don't like any of the mail clients that have had Exchange support just bolted on).

So other than a few things here and there, Windows has very little place in my world. And in the event that I absolutely need to boot to a native Windows environment for some reason or another? Well, my Mac can do that too. I guess that's one of the other reasons I like Mac's - they give me options. I can run OS X, Ubuntu, and Windows - all on the same machine. That's flexibility.

Sabalo

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Well, you seem to be pretty focused on the hardware and the value of the components as relates to other parts.

Yep! I need power. I need to be able to test Server 2008 Forests and I need them to run on something I can take with my around the world. My continued development as an unapologetically evil mercenary depends on it.

All kidding aside, what I really need is power and portability. My new laptop is 7.3 pound of not-so-light power. I'd love an 8 hour battery life, but I'd spend 8 hours wishing I could do what I need to do.

it_consultant

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Well, you seem to be pretty focused on the hardware and the value of the components as relates to other parts.

I'm not a Mac user because I like the *** appeal of them. It actually annoys me when I'm out working in public and people stop and gawk, or worse yet, ask me questions about the mac. It was kind of fun for 5 minutes when my mom gushed over the apple lighting up on the back, but that was about it. I'm a mac user because I like OS X. For me, it's the best fusion I've found of pretty GUI and powerful tools under the hood (Ubuntu comes close, really close, but lacks in a few key areas). That, combined with the fact that I can trust my laptop to not crash on a regular basis and cause me relatively little grief in the way of maintenance all make the Apple "experience" very important to me. I sure can put a concrete value on it - couple hundred bucks over 2 grand.

So very few mac users understand that not only is the command line powerful and Mac is really the ONLY user friendly Unix variety in existence.

This is impressive to me for Microsoft in that Apple uses an open source and thoroughly developed kernel on very exacting hardware specifications whereas MS has a closed source kernel and is supported on a variety of hardware platforms. The fact that Windows is 85% as good as Mac is very good.

From a Windows perspective Mac fixes the problems that all PCs suffer, crappy third party software. Every crap Windows machine was made that way by viruses or poorly written software. The Windows kernel itself is fine, we have all seen Windows servers that were unstoppable for 6-7 years because the admins were fanatical about vetting any software that was installed on them.