View topic - Why I think Macs are overhyped - Windows, Apple, Application, Abandonware and Game Beta Downloads/Repository

Pwned

Smorgan · Last edited by Smorgan on Mon May 21, 2012 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok I'm going to try to settle this since I was blissfully sleeping in today.

The MAC as you know it pwned is over priced. I'm going to explain the rig I have in front of me thats running Diablo 3 including price tag for each part in it gotta love my memory.

Gigabyte 990 FXA-UD7 - 8 SATA ports / 6 PCI E ports (250 dollars)
6 GB of ram (75 dollars)
2 - ATI 6850 Sapphire Cards (400 dollars)
2 - 1 TB hard drives (75 dollars)
2 - 1.5 TB hard drives (125 dollars)
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T (175 dollars)
Thermalright 120 rev C cooler (50 dollars)
2 - Scythe 3000 rpm fans (30 dollars)
Scythe fan cooler (50 dollars)
28 inch Hanns G monitor (310 dollars)
Corsair 750 WATT PSU (110 dollars)
DVD Burner (25 dollars)
Blu-ray Burner (80 dollars)

The rest of the parts were given to me which was the case and some of the fans. Now this is a bleeding edge rig which I've overclocked the CPU to 4.09 Ghz and the GPU. (I know the Intel guys could do better but this is for example purposes only).

Total cost for the entire rig came to drum roll please. 1775 dollars thus your argument is invalid. This is just the parts made to build the custom rig I have if you wish to include labor then that was 6 hours.

Pwned

Smorgan wrote:

Phenom II X6 1090

That sums up everything in your post. AMD is cheaper, yes, but your AMD has only 6 cores. In fact, the cores aren't even probably real. You know the "Make more cores!" joke?

On a Mac Pro I can render a 1080p HD video, run several Windows 7 x64 virtual machines, and play a game. All at the same time, with nearly no lags.

---

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T (175 dollars)
vs
2x Intel Xeon Westmere (2000 dollars)

Even not talking about Macs, the Xeon price is MUCH higher (and that's not even a newest Xeon).

hounsell

The cores are perfectly real.

It's clear that your understanding of hardware is seriously lacking. While it's probably pointless comparing one of the high-end Mac Pros to a typical desktop, comparing one of the lower-end models brings it into sharp contrast.

Take the bottom Mac Pro in the UK:

£2,050 buys you a quad-core, with 3GB RAM and a 1TB hard drive, and a 5770.

This cost me significantly less than half that. About the price of the bottom iMac iirc. That's a bulldozer, 16GB RAM, 3 Graphics cards (2x6850 in CF, 1xGT430 for CUDA/PhysX), 2x500GB in RAID0, 120GB SSD. Like it or not, that'd blow the Mac Pro out of the water for 95% of workloads for less than 40% of the cash.

Macs are overpriced.

Derf · Last edited by Derf on Mon May 21, 2012 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Too lazy to rewrite what I just said on #nttalk, so here's a copy pasta.

Quote:

2:26 PM <Derf> Macs aren't.
2:26 PM <Derf> well, not all of them.
2:26 PM <Derf> Mac Pro's are.
2:27 PM <Derf> MacBook Air's are underpriced if anything - competitors are having a hard time building anything close for that price.
2:27 PM <Derf> MacBook Pro's are competitvely priced for other laptops in that class, and iMac's are one of the most competitvely priced AIO's on the market.
2:28 PM <Derf> sure, if you compare a Mac to your average junk, they're a bit overpriced. but just like Apple doesn't build a straight up desktop, there are just markets that Apple choses not to compete in.

Pwned

You have an AMD, which has a bit different architecture. You can't just compare an Intel CPU to and AMD one.

And anyway, you CPU is just $170 on NewEgg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103961

Panda X

hounsell wrote:

Windows 7 goes from WinPE to Desktop in about 25mins for me, on my *netbook*. Much quicker than installing Mountain Lion on my Mac Mini.

A guy I knew went to install Lion, I believe it was, and it took so long it reminded me of the days back installing XP on a computer with 256/512MB of RAM.

compgeke

Just a message from me:

danielcarlhaffner

Panda X wrote:

hounsell wrote:

Windows 7 goes from WinPE to Desktop in about 25mins for me, on my *netbook*. Much quicker than installing Mountain Lion on my Mac Mini.

A guy I knew went to install Lion, I believe it was, and it took so long it reminded me of the days back installing XP on a computer with 256/512MB of RAM.

Had a friend with a pretty nice mac. He installed Lion and it look a little over 3 hours to install. Like 3 hours 20 minutes. Something like that, I told him that was really incredibly terrible.
----------------------
Once again, I wanted to congratulate you for the great article, Tandyman100. Really good. And really this hasn't gotten very bad (talking about flame war). I have seen and been in much worse ones. This one is just a very passionate conversation.

hounsell

Pwned wrote:

You have an AMD, which has a bit different architecture. You can't just compare an Intel CPU to and AMD one.

And anyway, you CPU is just $170 on NewEgg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103961

They're both x86, capable of executing the same software.

Yes, my CPU is cheaper. I think you'll find much of my computer is. That's my entire point. It's cheaper, but more capable performance-wise in the vast majority of cases. Apple chose to use Intel over AMD. It's not like they don't have a choice.

Pwned

hounsell wrote:

Pwned wrote:

You have an AMD, which has a bit different architecture. You can't just compare an Intel CPU to and AMD one.

And anyway, you CPU is just $170 on NewEgg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103961

They're both x86, capable of executing the same software.

Yes, my CPU is cheaper. I think you'll find much of my computer is. That's my entire point. It's cheaper, but more capable performance-wise in the vast majority of cases. Apple chose to use Intel over AMD. It's not like they don't have a choice.

We shouldn't make this a Intel vs. AMD topic. Intel and AMD both set their price. Unfortunately or not, that's what they do.

hounsell

It's not an Intel vs AMD topic - It's a "Why are macs so expensive" topic. It's valid to suggest that an adherance to a single CPU manufacturer rather than picking the best processor for the job performance/price-wise could be one reason why.

bckf

Let's be honest, even if Apple's RAM was accurately tested and cuddled just for their customers and if AMD wasn't comparable to Intel, it wouldn't change a thing.
Apart from the overprice, Mac's overhype is just a fact.

I mean, just talk with some people who haven't a clue about computers and you'll discover that Apple products common perception is just so far from reality.
People really thinks Mac is the ultimate in both design, user experience, reliability, security and general quality (maybe some applefag will also tell you Mac has best performance, I don't know).
It's just [censored], Macs are PCs like the others.

So, maybe this should be more about people and their misconception (and Apple ad campaigns) than Macs.
I don't think you can "debunk" Mac's overhype talking about Macs, you won't be able to justify it in any way.
In fact when someone tries he ends up with arguments like the cuddle-RAM one.

Tandyman100

bckf wrote:

Let's be honest, even if Apple's RAM was accurately tested and cuddled just for their customers and if AMD wasn't comparable to Intel, it wouldn't change a thing.
Apart from the overprice, Mac's overhype is just a fact.

I mean, just talk with some people who haven't a clue about computers and you'll discover that Apple products common perception is just so far from reality.
People really thinks Mac is the ultimate in both design, user experience, reliability, security and general quality (maybe some applefag will also tell you Mac has best performance, I don't know).
It's just [censored], Macs are PCs like the others.

So, maybe this should be more about people and their misconception (and Apple ad campaigns) than Macs.
I don't think you can "debunk" Mac's overhype talking about Macs, you won't be able to justify it in any way.
In fact when someone tries he ends up with arguments like the cuddle-RAM one.

Thank you for saying what I've been trying to put into words. I didn't start this thread to start all this controversy, though I am always up for a good argument, but rather I started it to
A) Have ya'll judge my writing and how well I fact-checked
B) See if anyone had any intelligent counterarguments
C) Ok, I view-whored my site a ~~lot~~ little. So sue me

Smorgan

Pwned I find your response to the specs I post just insulting you obviously have neither the experience nor knowledge to back up what your saying. You have probably never built a machine from just parts thus you don't know much at all. My machine doesn't need any help at all it speaks for itself in its specs I listed. Your reasons are invalid at every point as well as the consistency of which your arguing. Face the facts the hardware is cheap its just when you add the apple logo that it becomes expensive. If you can't compare a Mac Pro to a PC when they are made out of the same thing then there is something very wrong here indeed.

Tandyman100

/thread

Derf

Everything about that image is negated when you realize that whomever made it called the processors "Pentiums", bundled in generic 24" displays for the PC and high end cinema displays for the Mac, and "Can become a Mac" on the PC.

Again I reiterate - this is an idiotic topic that was very obviously meant to only serve as linkbait for his blog. Nobody has brought anything new to the debate, just the same gibberish that's brought every time we have it.

compgeke

Ahh, new stuff.

The PC has been the same for a while, so you have a lot of compatibility with older components when using an OS such as Linux. The Macintosh made a switch from PowerPC to Intel, which did wreck a lot of hardware support.

Both PCs and Macs can run Linux, both older PCs and Macs can run linux. Both PCs and macs use a lot of the same parts. CD drives, ram, hard drives, wireless cards, even the video card can be compatible with a Mac\PC if Mac Flashed or flashed from mac state, which proves it's only the firmware on the card that makes a difference.

The processors are also the same. Back with the Core 2 Duos the desktop macs (iMac and Mac Mini) were using laptop chips, which resulted in a cooler running system for their size. A PC used a regular ol desktop chip, which was a little faster and produced more heat and used more power. Both had their pluses and weaknesses. The PC counterparts used more power and put out more heat, which meant that the cooling was needed to be better. The Macs on the other hand ran cooler and could use less cooling. The drawback to the PC's more power is the cooling, while the mac's drawback to less power usage is less performance.

Now, here's the thing about a Mac's price. You're paying for the OS basically. The hardware is a lot alike that of a PC, just mainly the OS. Mac OS has really cheap updates, like $26. A PC running Windows has updates that are priced depending on the version. Lets say I'm upgrading to Windows 7 Home Premium from Windows Vista Premium. If I wanted to buy the upgrade at the store it would cost me $120, or around 4x that of the Mac's OS upgrade.

The quality of a system also has to do with which one you get. One thing to remember is that every company has it's good products and bad products. A PC company might have a line of good products, like Dell. They were doing pretty good making some reliable business desktops (GX150, 240, etc) until the GX270s came with the leaking cap issue. I've seen it on a few 260s but more common on the 270s. An example from Apple are the Liquid Cooled Power Mac G5s. They had an issue with a leaking cooling system which would corrode the components. This here is just proof that quality of hardware has it's ups and downs.

Honestly, I don't see the point of arguing over which is better, both have their advantages and disadvantages. I really want a Macbook Pro as it has a decent screen for graphic design, a resolution higher than 1366x768. I also prefer Adobe Creative Suite on mac better, not sure why but it seems to run faster. I do want a PC for gaming though as most games are going to be released on Windows more likely than a Mac. Linux is good for older computers (Pentium 4s, PowerPC macs, etc) as it can be very light weight (text-only, can run on a 386 with 16 megs ram) to something like Gnome or Unity which is a full featured GUI. For a Powerbook G4 or a Pentium III\4 laptop, Xubuntu would be alright for most people who don't do anything other than check their email and social networking, maybe a few flash games but Farmville ran great on a 800 MHz eMac with Leopard (yeah, target disk mode install).

The point here is that both have their uses and can be compatible with each other, so I really don't see the point on this ongoing war over which is better, which is more cost effective, etc.

Pwned

hounsell wrote:

It's not an Intel vs AMD topic - It's a "Why are macs so expensive" topic. It's valid to suggest that an adherance to a single CPU manufacturer rather than picking the best processor for the job performance/price-wise could be one reason why.

Maybe Apple thought that Intel is better - they made a choice.

Smorgan wrote:

Pwned I find your response to the specs I post just insulting you obviously have neither the experience nor knowledge to back up what your saying. You have probably never built a machine from just parts thus you don't know much at all. My machine doesn't need any help at all it speaks for itself in its specs I listed. Your reasons are invalid at every point as well as the consistency of which your arguing. Face the facts the hardware is cheap its just when you add the apple logo that it becomes expensive. If you can't compare a Mac Pro to a PC when they are made out of the same thing then there is something very wrong here indeed.

Yes, I did build several machines from scratch. I don't know what you are trying to say, but the cheapness of your PC is in the processor. I already said that.

@Tandyman100, that's an old and incorrect pic, made by someone, who has never tried Macs in his life.

@compgeke, Agreed 100%. That's the reply I was waiting for!

hounsell

Pwned wrote:

Yes, I did build several machines from scratch. I don't know what you are trying to say, but the cheapness of your PC is in the processor. I already said that.

You're arguing that it's unfair to compare a Mac to a PC in price because a PC uses cheaper parts.

This is the whole point. A PC uses cheaper parts, so it is cheaper. The point is, despite being cheaper, it'd perform better. Therefore it's perfectly legitimate to ask why Apple prices its computers so high. Nothing is stopping them using more cost-effective parts, but they chose not to.

compgeke wrote:

Now, here's the thing about a Mac's price. You're paying for the OS basically. The hardware is a lot alike that of a PC, just mainly the OS. Mac OS has really cheap updates, like $26. A PC running Windows has updates that are priced depending on the version. Lets say I'm upgrading to Windows 7 Home Premium from Windows Vista Premium. If I wanted to buy the upgrade at the store it would cost me $120, or around 4x that of the Mac's OS upgrade.

Not sure about this argument. Doesn't that single-handedly ruin the whole "it's cheaper than Windows" argument for OS X if the price disparity between PCs and Macs is down to the OS? Because that's far more cash than an OEM copy of Windows, which a new PC build would be entitled to use. Even if you factor in two subsequent upgrades, it's still less cash to go the Windows route...

Pwned

@hounsell,

No, my point is that he uses an AMD. I'm not talking about Macs, but about the processors. If he used 2 Xeons instead of one Phenom, the price would be $3600, and not $1775.

SotirisMichail

Pwned wrote:

.....
On a Mac Pro I can render a 1080p HD video, run several Windows 7 x64 virtual machines, and play a game..

Well, gaming on Macs is an old joke. The games available for Mac are the Valve Source ones (the only good ones IMHO), some online ones and the sims.

Pwned wrote:

Well, I heard HP and Compaq laptops break after 2-3 years. In fact, that's true, I've seen it with my eyes. They can also overheat, and parts can be replaced with Chinese alternatives, which makes it fail even quicker. It's not like all PCs fail, yes, but it's not that Macs also fail.

Well, you just heard, that's the problem. I speak from personal experience with a low-end, bottom-of-the-line, 450€, 3 year old Compaq Presario. I just had to upgrade the RAM from 2GB to 3GB, not because it needed more, just because I thought it would be good for it. It's rock solid, it's stable, it's unbreakable and runs remarkably well. I can even play new games on it, even with that ol' graphics card, an nVidia 8200 M G. And it also has AMD, those processors you clearly despise and I don't see why. And it's an awesome processor really. I can do everything that my friends with their brand new desktops can. Also, all of my friends have desktop PCs and laptops, mostly Acer and HP, and they are more than happy with them.

And after saying all these to my cousin, he went on buying a 2010 MacBook Pro. A nice spent of nearly 2000€. First of all, I can't say it's bad at all, really. It's good for......well.....writing stuff.....I guess. We (all the cousins) compared it to my own laptop. It was not bad, but it was inferior to that old Compaq.

And, yes, some have bad luck with HPs and Compaqs, as some have bad luck with macs. The brand doesn't mean anything, it's just how this world works. Maybe in a perfect world, nothing would fail

.

The thing is, people, at least where I live, buy (or used to buy, see economic crisis) just because they thought it was "cool". The fact is that Macs aren't cool. You aren't the cool guy to have one at Starbucks and pretend you're writing there, you're just blind and don't see everyone else with the same MacBook and that damn shiny, lit Apple logo on the lid.

And overpricing doesn't come from testing, since they don't really test them as much as you think, it just comes from Apple's distorted view of reality and market. They have the illusion that they will dominate the market if the have the strict and absolute control of everything they sell. They live in the iWorld.

And about that design you mentioned, Macs might look good in design outside with that brushed metal and stuff, but there are some PC cases that are just grand masterpieces (see this, but I guess that's subjective. The whole design thing you try to bring up as an advantage of macs, not only is subjective and PCs can have it too, but it's just something Apple and every Apple fanboy with his latest iDevice and typical mac user style have come up with as an "advantage" to PCs.

And something nobody mentioned and I find wrong in every way, the whole Mac vs PC ads and how misleading were they.......

Pwned wrote:

@hounsell,

No, my point is that he uses an AMD. I'm not talking about Macs, but about the processors. If he used 2 Xeons instead of one Phenom, the price would be $3600, and not $1775.

Also, yeah, that processor thing again, but from the Mac perspective. If they are targeting casual users and inexperienced ones, why do they put such processors in their products. I don't think that a student or a teacher who buys a Mac because they believed that it will be easier to use than any other PC, will ever need 8 or I don't know how many cores. Maybe it's just an excuse to raise the price....just sayin'......

PS. This is just my opinion. Even if it contains facts, don't treat it's like the hard and only truth (although the truth is only one, that Apple products are ridiculously overpriced). I might be wrong

Pwned

SotirisMichail wrote:

Well, gaming on Macs is an old joke. The games available for Mac are the Valve Source ones (the only good ones IMHO), some online ones and the sims.

Well, you just heard, that's the problem. I speak from personal experience with a low-end, bottom-of-the-line, 450€, 3 year old Compaq Presario. I just had to upgrade the RAM from 2GB to 3GB, not because it needed more, just because I thought it would be good for it. It's rock solid, it's stable, it's unbreakable and runs remarkably well. I can even play new games on it, even with that ol' graphics card, an nVidia 8200 M G. And it also has AMD, those processors you clearly despise and I don't see why. And it's an awesome processor really. I can do everything that my friends with their brand new desktops can. Also, all of my friends have desktop PCs and laptops, mostly Acer and HP, and they are more than happy with them.

And after saying all these to my cousin, he went on buying a 2010 MacBook Pro. A nice spent of nearly 2000€. First of all, I can't say it's bad at all, really. It's good for......well.....writing stuff.....I guess. We (all the cousins) compared it to my own laptop. It was not bad, but it was inferior to that old Compaq.

And, yes, some have bad luck with HPs and Compaqs, as some have bad luck with macs. The brand doesn't mean anything, it's just how this world works. Maybe in a perfect world, nothing would fail

.

The thing is, people, at least where I live, buy (or used to buy, see economic crisis) just because they thought it was "cool". The fact is that Macs aren't cool. You aren't the cool guy to have one at Starbucks and pretend you're writing there, you're just blind and don't see everyone else with the same MacBook and that damn shiny, lit Apple logo on the lid.

And overpricing doesn't come from testing, since they don't really test them as much as you think, it just comes from Apple's distorted view of reality and market. They have the illusion that they will dominate the market if the have the strict and absolute control of everything they sell. They live in the iWorld.

And about that design you mentioned, Macs might look good in design outside with that brushed metal and stuff, but there are some PC cases that are just grand masterpieces (see this, but I guess that's subjective. The whole design thing you try to bring up as an advantage of macs, not only is subjective and PCs can have it too, but it's just something Apple and every Apple fanboy with his latest iDevice and typical mac user style have come up with as an "advantage" to PCs.

And something nobody mentioned and I find wrong in every way, the whole Mac vs PC ads and how misleading were they.......

Also, yeah, that processor thing again, but from the Mac perspective. If they are targeting casual users and inexperienced ones, why do they put such processors in their products. I don't think that a student or a teacher who buys a Mac because they believed that it will be easier to use than any other PC, will ever need 8 or I don't know how many cores. Maybe it's just an excuse to raise the price....just sayin'......

PS. This is just my opinion. Even if it contains facts, don't treat it's like the hard and only truth (although the truth is only one, that Apple products are ridiculously overpriced). I might be wrong

Wrong. You can play most games on a Mac now. That's a useless reason to promote PCs.

OK, good. By the way, does it overheat?

Did that MacBook break? And how is it inferior, if it has newer hardware, bigger screen, etc.?

True. But statistics exist for a reason.

I'm not a hipster, I don't buy Apple products because of that.

That made no sense what you have written here. Control?

That case is pretty nice, but... compare that to a PowerMac G5 case. PCs can't have that design, in fact, have you seen someone whose "PC is super cool and overclocked" doesn't have tons of LEDs?

Except they were true. And most ads are like that, it's called good marketing.

Because in their opinion, AMD is not quality enough. I wonder if AMD still doesn't include CPU fans.

Yes, because a teacher wouldn't buy a Mac Pro. There are MacBooks and iMacs for that.

Even if it doesn't contain facts. OK.

Tandyman100

This is kinda off-topic, and not really serious, but it is a funny anecdote.

Basically, a friend of mine was Minecrafting for the first time on a school-issued MacBook with a Core2Duo.

<Tandyman100> Ok, cool. Hello!
<Kelucia> Hai! So, uh, what do I do?
<Tandyman100> Move around with wasd and the mouse, click to destroy blocks. Pretty simple. E opens the craft menu/inventory
<Kelucia> Sweet.
*time passes*
<Kelucia> How do I place blocks?
<Tandyman100> Right-click
<Kelucia> ...
<Kelucia> I can't right-click. I'm on a Mac.

Yes, I know she could go and buy a mouse, but the story is funnier if you don't rationalize all over it

Also, I find it hilarious how Macs are supposed to "think different" when each one of them is identical. Yeah, you're so different from the other people who have the exact same computer to be different, lol.

And as far as 6-core insanely-powerful processors in the high-end Mac Pros I do agree it's probably overkill, but since they market it to "creative" types, these creative types probably do a lot of video rendering, and I can see where an insano-overkill processor would come in handy. Of course, the Mac Pro still has rubbish everything else, but the processor, at least, is respectable.

Of course, if you *aren't* rendering lots of video or editing 20mp images in Photoshop there is no bloody way you need anything other than the cheapest Mac there is, and if you compare those to their PC counterparts there's no contest in price.

Pwned, you're comparing the high-end Macs to PCs, which isn't what 90% of people buy. They opt for the lower-end Macintoshes, and those *are* way overpriced, undoubtedly.

Pwned

@Tandyman100,

If you are used to the fact that you right-clicked all the time in your life you probably will be amazed by the fact that the trackpads in MacBooks don't have a right click button. It's just a design gimmick. And you can right click actually a different way (a tutorial for noobs): http://www.wikihow.com/Right-Click-on-a-Macbook

Tandyman100 wrote:

Pwned, you're comparing the high-end Macs to PCs, which isn't what 90% of people buy. They opt for the lower-end Macintoshes, and those *are* way overpriced, undoubtedly.

People buy MacBook Air and Pros, and iMacs. Find be an AIO PC similar to an iMac? No, I'm not talking about these plastic, touchscreen PCs. Just look at the resolution of the 27" iMac: 2560x1440.

Also, read this if you haven't yet:

Derf wrote:

Too lazy to rewrite what I just said on #nttalk, so here's a copy pasta.

Quote:

2:26 PM <Derf> Macs aren't.
2:26 PM <Derf> well, not all of them.
2:26 PM <Derf> Mac Pro's are.
2:27 PM <Derf> MacBook Air's are underpriced if anything - competitors are having a hard time building anything close for that price.
2:27 PM <Derf> MacBook Pro's are competitvely priced for other laptops in that class, and iMac's are one of the most competitvely priced AIO's on the market.
2:28 PM <Derf> sure, if you compare a Mac to your average junk, they're a bit overpriced. but just like Apple doesn't build a straight up desktop, there are just markets that Apple choses not to compete in.

EDIT:

Tandyman100 wrote:

/thread

Interesting. You have started the thread, now you want it to be closed.

Tandyman100 wrote:

Also, I find it hilarious how Macs are supposed to "think different" when each one of them is identical. Yeah, you're so different from the other people who have the exact same computer to be different, lol.

Think different from mainstream. That's what it means.

Why I think Macs are overhyped

Who is online