The Shrine

So I ordered my Macbook this weekend. I got a 13", 2.0 GHz (versus the 2.4 GHz) processor, and the only change I made was I bumped it up to 4 GB of RAM. That configuration, plus a $40 bag, plus the 3 year warranty, minus an educational discount and plus tax was $1750. You can read the full specs at Apple's site; it's the left column halfway down.

I was curious to put an actual number on how much more I'm paying to get a Macbook with OSX instead of a Dell with Vista, so I priced two Dell laptops with specs as close as I could get to the Macbook. The disk size is off - the Dell disk is larger, but that doesn't make much of a difference to me. I tried matching the processors as best I could, but in both cases the Dell processor is a 2.1 GHz with a 3MB cache versus the Macbook's 2.0 GHz with a 3MB cache. For Dell, there was a cheaper option with a 2.0 GHz and a 2MB cache, but I know that the extra MB in L2 cache will make a larger difference in performance than an extra 100 MHz in processor speed.

I don't know enough about the Macbook's graphics card to try to match it up with a Dell component, so I went with the cheapest one.

For both of these, I chose Dell's best 3 year warranty plan:

Inspiron 13
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T8100 (2.1GHz/800Mhz FSB/3MB cache)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1
DellCare Plus
Glossy, widescreen 13.3" LCD (1280x800) w/ 2.0M pixel Camera
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100
4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 667MHz
Size: 250GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
8X Slot Load CD / DVD Burner (Dual Layer DVD+/-RW Drive)
Dell Wireless 1395 802.11g Mini-Card
56Whr Lithium Ion Battery (6 cell)
Starting Price: $1,625
Instant Savings: $274
Subtotal: $1,351

XPS M1330
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T8100 (2.1GHz/800Mhz FSB/3MB cache)
Genuine Windows Vista ® Home Premium Edition SP1
No Productivity software pre-installed
DellCare Premium
Standard Display with 2.0 Megapixel Webcam
4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
Size: 250GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW Drive)
Intel® Integrated Graphics Media Accelerator 3100
Dell Wireless 1395 802.11g Mini Card
37Whr Lithium Ion Battery (4 cell)
High Definition Audio 2.0
Starting Price: $1,836
Instant Savings: $126
Subtotal: $1,710

Over the summer, I used a Thinkpad T40, and I was impressed with it. If I didn't buy a Macbook, I would have considered a Thinkpad instead of a Dell. So here's the pricing of the kind of model I would have considered:

ThinkPad SL 300 Series
$1,224.00
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor P8400 (2.26GHz 1066MHz 3MBL2) 25W
Genuine Windows Vista Business
13.3" WXGA LED Backlight1
NVIDIA GeForce 9300M 128MB
4 GB PC2-5300 DDR2 SDRAM 667MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM)
1.3 Megapixel Integrated Camera
160 GB Hard Disk Drive, 5400rpm
DVD Recordable 8x Max Dual Layer
Intel WiFi Link 5100
Integrated AT&T Mobile Broadband (3G)
6 cell Li-Ion Battery ( 2.4 Ah )
Country Pack North America with Line cord & 90W AC adapter
3 Year Depot Upgrade with 3 Year ThinkPad Protection
$209.25
ThinkPad Carrying Case - Expander
$29.00
Sale price (total): $1,462.25

All of the specced prices are, I think, before tax. I think my Macbook was about $1400 before tax, then $40 for the bag and $180 for the 3 year warranty.

This doesn't constitute a study, and in some cases I'm comparing Apples to an unknown fruit - for example, I don't understand the true difference between the Dell Inspiron and the Dell XPS. These are single data points, not a trend, but they represent actual alternatives to me. So if we assume the above numbers are with tax, then I in my case, the Apple Tax was between $399 and $40. If the above are before tax, and we assume a 7% sales tax, then my purchase was about $79 cheaper in the case of the XPS, $186 more expensive than the Thinkpad, and $306 more than the Inspiron.

Awesome. I hope you enjoy it.

When you figure that the OS is your access to your PC, it makes a big difference if you prefer OSX over Vista. I think I would prefer OSX, too, as this point.

What I plan to do after graduation is snag a Macbook, and continue to use my home built PC as my main rig and gaming stuff. That way I get the best of both worlds.

Sephy wrote:What I plan to do after graduation is snag a Macbook, and continue to use my home built PC as my main rig and gaming stuff. That way I get the best of both worlds.

I was actually gonna do that with my wife but I ended up getting a good enough deal on an HP (at the time; almost 2 years ago) that made it half or so of the cost of an equivalent Mac. Wasn't about to pay that but I would have liked to have a Macbook to actually use for a length of time rather than just the fiddling I've done with my bud's

Meh, if you want a Mac, just buy the right hardware needed for OSX on PC, and install that.

SineSwiper wrote:Meh, if you want a Mac, just buy the right hardware needed for OSX on PC, and install that.

For a main comp? No chance, especially with XP being so stable. The major downfall with a Mac is incompatibility (well, and price but that's becoming less of an issue). I just want to be able to get a program and install it, no compatibility issues. If I got a desktop Mac, I'd probably have XP installed on it just to make sure I don't run into these issues. Laptop is different and not used in the same way. That's why I'd be open to a Mac laptop but not a desktop Mac.

SineSwiper wrote:Meh, if you want a Mac, just buy the right hardware needed for OSX on PC, and install that.

I just specced out a 20" iMac and a Dell desktop with 20" monitor with specifications as close as I could get (2.4 GHz Dual Core with 6 MB L2 cache, 250 GB harddrive, 4 GB RAM, 3 year warranty). The iMac was $118 more expensive; $1593 and $1475. I think the perception of Apple being excessively more expensive than the alternative is exaggerated. The main difference is that Apple doesn't let you create as stripped-down a system as the others. The cheapest iMac (no warranty and no changes to the lowest configuration) is $1200. The cheapest Dell (of the kind I selected, which I think is marketed to the same kind of user) with a 20" monitor is $790. But the Mac is more powerful. When you match them as close as possible, component by component, the prices are close.

If someone wants OSX, and they're already buying a new computer, it's easier to just buy a Mac.

SineSwiper wrote:Meh, if you want a Mac, just buy the right hardware needed for OSX on PC, and install that.

This defeats half the purpose of buying a Mac in the first place. If you're the kind of person that can get a hackintosh running, you're probably more suited to Linux.

Just because you can get Linux running doesn't mean you want to.

I think I've said several times on here that I use Linux for work as both the OS that's on our experimental machines and what's on my desk. I prefer Linux as a development environment, so I put up with its desktop failures - at work. After coming back to Blacksburg, I got a wonderful example of why I won't use Linux at home yet:

Fedora 9 has been out for a while, and I hadn't started real thesis work yet, so I figured it was a good time to upgrade my box in the office. I had Fedora 8 installed. Tried to install from a DVD we had in the office. Failed with a "can't read metadata error" when reading the packages. Okay, probably a corrupt disc. An hour and a wasted DVD later, it turns out it's not a corrupt disc. Some Googling leads to interesting theories on that error, but none of the solutions pan out (memory test).

So I figure I just try a non-GUI install - the error was in anaconda, which will be used even in a text mode install, so I doubt this will work, but it's worth a shot. No go.

Next I figure, since it's happening during package install, what if I install minimal packages? Maybe it's a particular package. So I do a minimal install. It works!

Kinda.

Gnome takes forever to load, then hangs. Applications won't start. After several tries, I get a terminal in Gnome, and invoke Firefox. Finally I see the error messages, and they're all X related. Since I sincerely doubt Firefox is the problem, I figure that upgrading from Fedora 8 to Fedora 9 bjorked X. At this point, I accept the only solution: clean install. So I tar up my home directory, back it up to another computer on the network.

So I start a clean install, except I don't do minimal packages. Which causes the install to fail. Which leaves me with no OS installed - awesome. The install failed, but it still formatted the drives. Booting the computer just yields a grub prompt.

So I do the most conservative thing I can: clean install, no packages, text based. And it works! I now have an empty workstation.

That's about two days at the office. I'm willing to do it because I want Linux to Get Shit Done. I'm not willing to spend that much time on my home computer.

Bonus Content!

Music. So I ripped the CD I'm listening to, loaded up Amarok, and... I get a blip every 10 seconds during playback. I'm not an audio Nazi, but getting a blip every 10 seconds is extremely annoying. So I try ripping with higher quality. Nutin'. I try ripping to a different format. No change. Out of desperation, I change audio engines from xine to Helix. It works. No clue why. Clean playback.

But then, mp3s. No problem, I've solved this before. Google finds me the page which tells me how to add the livna repository to yum, and then the exact name for amarok-nonfree. (I've done this several times before.) Install everything and... that only adds mp3 support to the xine engine, not Helix. So I still get the blips. Not acceptable.

Okay, so then let's add mp3 support to Helix. Google to the rescue. Page found. Install RealPlayer and supporting software. Helix still doesn't play mp3s. But! Xmms uses yet a different engine, and I can install it and non-free mp3 playback in one yum command. Done and done.

So while I can listen to both non-mp3s and mp3s, I load up Amarok for the non-mp3s, and xmms for the mp3s. Again, I put up with this at work, but at home, that's just not acceptable.

This is the point at which I realize there's a version of Unix that doesn't have these problems. It's pretty, shit works, and I don't need to Google for solutions. It's called OSX.

Kupek wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:Meh, if you want a Mac, just buy the right hardware needed for OSX on PC, and install that.

I just specced out a 20" iMac and a Dell desktop with 20" monitor with specifications as close as I could get (2.4 GHz Dual Core with 6 MB L2 cache, 250 GB harddrive, 4 GB RAM, 3 year warranty). The iMac was $118 more expensive; $1593 and $1475. I think the perception of Apple being excessively more expensive than the alternative is exaggerated. The main difference is that Apple doesn't let you create as stripped-down a system as the others. The cheapest iMac (no warranty and no changes to the lowest configuration) is $1200. The cheapest Dell (of the kind I selected, which I think is marketed to the same kind of user) with a 20" monitor is $790. But the Mac is more powerful. When you match them as close as possible, component by component, the prices are close.

If someone wants OSX, and they're already buying a new computer, it's easier to just buy a Mac.

How about the cost of building it yourself... I've built computers for about 7 or 8 years now. Its not rocket science and each individual part has a warranty. Talk about Apple Tax or another brand tax. Do it yourself IMO

My above post on not wanting to deal with Linux at home can be extrapolated to hardware. It's not an issue of difficulty. It's an issue of time.

Kupek wrote:My above post on not wanting to deal with Linux at home can be extrapolated to hardware. It's not an issue of difficulty. It's an issue of time.

... you don't have an afternoon on a weekend. Its like a 2 hour project at most for significant savings

Yup, that's two hours I'm not willing to spend. Assembling a computer might be novel for some, but to me it's awful close to work. Although there's more than just assembling time; there's also the research required for getting all of the components.

And dealing with a manufacturer like Apple or Dell when something does go wrong is much easier; sure, each component might have a warranty, but it's my job to figure out the problem. Shipping it to someone else and saying "You figure it out" is much easier. Which brings up my next requirement: laptop. Do DIY laptops even exist?

It's an hour or two if everything goes right, but that doesn't always happen. If time is extremely expensive then a person might feel the extra expense is worth it not to take the chance.

My last three desktop computers have all been DIY and in that time, I've only had one harddrive and one stick of RAM fail. Called Maxtor and they sent me a new one. RAM was cheap so I just got another one. Hell, my keyboard went all haywire after 2 years and Logitech sent me a newer one for free. It's hardly an issue in terms of getting things fixed. And I'm the type who leaves his desktop on for months at a time

I personally don't know of any DIY laptops.

I guess I'd rather research parts and get exactly what I want for the price I want to pay. And part of me enjoys the process of assembling the computer I'm using. To each their own, but I don't like sitting there and crunching numbers in my head and realizing I'm getting inferior specs for the money I'm spending.

I assemble, configure and diagnose computers as a part of my job. It's not my job, keep in mind, it's just what I have to do to get work done. So I don't want to do it in my spare time.

I also think people have an irrational desire to get the "best" type of a thing even when there are marginal actual benefits.

I agree that buying the best is often only a marginal improvement, thus why I don't do it. I just know what will get me where I want to go for the money I'm going to spend. I love the ability to upgrade my machine on the fly too.

I also hate sales people and corporate owned stores... I sold computers for Best Buy during college, and the Mac Store seems like a place where they incinerate puppies, reminds me of a Vets office. And as nice as the Apple Experts are, it still involves down time and waiting in queue for your machine to get fixed. No ones computer tech support or offerings are as good as mine or googles

Kupek wrote:I also think people have an irrational desire to get the "best" type of a thing even when there are marginal actual benefits.

Well, yeah. I want to maximize my value. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

And it's not marginal. I do it to eliminate bottlenecks as much as possible. You can get a Dell or whatever that has them mostly eliminated but it would cost you far more than doing it yourself. By eliminating bottlenecks you can extend the useful life of your rig (assuming you're not getting it for games, that is). I spent 7 years with my last comp and all I did in that time was put more RAM in it. It was perfectly fine for everything aside from gaming for 6 years then it became poor for video conversion so I upgraded.

Mind you, more and more people are aware of the bottlenecks nowadays (FSB speed, RAM speed) and some of the old issues are gone now (SATA is WAY better than IDE, video card RAM is pretty good now) but it doesn't hurt to piece together your stuff. You still end up saving money and sometimes get better quality hardware. What I do is piece together the best "bang for the buck" system not the best. You end up saving a relatively significant amount of money on these mid-range systems by eliminating the waste (why get 4GB of RAM when the rest of your system ain't able to properly utilize it?).

Kupek wrote:The main difference is that Apple doesn't let you create as stripped-down a system as the others. The cheapest iMac (no warranty and no changes to the lowest configuration) is $1200. The cheapest Dell (of the kind I selected, which I think is marketed to the same kind of user) with a 20" monitor is $790. But the Mac is more powerful. When you match them as close as possible, component by component, the prices are close.

And that's a huge deal. Today's PCs are powerful enough that you don't need the ALL of the power. A vast majority of computer owns use computers to surf the internet, check email, and do some office stuff. That doesn't require "powerful Macs". That requires some cheaper PCs.

And you aren't looking low enough. I can get an HP for $279. Hell, I can get some Dells for the same price. Doesn't have a monitor? So what! Hook it up to the HDTV!

So, that's almost a $900 difference. And this isn't including the savings of, as Anarchy pointed out, building a PC yourself. (Hey, look, Woot just showed me an eMachine for $189. Even cheaper!) Oh, and the iMac is the dumbest idea I've seen in a while. Let's combine a monitor and Mac, so that you CAN'T SEPARATE THE TWO! Great...so every time somebody wants to buy a new Mac, they are forced to buy a 20" monitor. Style over functionality again, which seems to be Apple's mantra.

Kupek wrote:I think I've said several times on here that I use Linux for work as both the OS that's on our experimental machines and what's on my desk. I prefer Linux as a development environment, so I put up with its desktop failures - at work. After coming back to Blacksburg, I got a wonderful example of why I won't use Linux at home yet:

Fedora 9 has been out for a while, and I hadn't started real thesis work yet, so I figured it was a good time to upgrade my box in the office. I had Fedora 8 installed. Tried to install from a DVD we had in the office. Failed with a "can't read metadata error" when reading the packages. Okay, probably a corrupt disc. An hour and a wasted DVD later, it turns out it's not a corrupt disc. Some Googling leads to interesting theories on that error, but none of the solutions pan out (memory test).

Keep in mind that this is an example of problems with Fedora, not "Linux" in general. I'll admit that Linux still has some problems in the desktop arena, but there are some better desktop-based distros out there that works. Hell, I've been happier with Debian-based distros lately, so try out those.

Oh, also thought I'd talk about laptops. Unless you need a work laptop for high-end calculations, you don't need anything powerful either. Decent laptops are also pretty cheap, and the used market for those bring the price down to much more reasonable figures.

I'll give you a story. For a while, people at work were getting away with playing games and stuff during work. It got to the point of people playing MMOs in their spare time with laptops that hooked to the wireless network. Some people started buying "gaming laptops" and playing. Eventually, work cracked down on that sort of thing, and nobody used their laptops. They sold their big expensive gaming machines to other folks. Ends up that a gaming laptop only has such a specific use that it's not worth it for most people.

So I found a rediculous security flaw in Max OS X today. I had to reset the password on the Mac I use at work, but I didn't know it. All you have to do is the following...
just wow...
http://lifehacker.com/software/mac-tip/ ... 278898.php

Oh snap!

For the lazy: very much the same thing works on Linux, and probably most Unix-based OSes. If someone has physical access to a machine, then it is compromised.

I thought if someone has physical access to your machine then you can pretty much assume it will be compromised.

Yeah, duh. Even if they can't get into the computer, they can still smash the thing, take the HD, and try to get the contents.