Those ads are so old that they aren't even funny anymore. They just pick on the smaller things and make it sound so big, and the only thing about macs I've heard them talk about is that it doesn't get viruses. I like macs but they are just too damn expensive for uni students to own with their own money. One can get a pc for about 600-700 and that too with some really good specs
When you say a joke once or twice it is funny and amusing, when you repeat the same one over and over, it becomes annying and kind of pathetic.
But not the same specs with comparable battery life in terms of laptops, and certainly not the same specs in an all-in-one model from any other computer manufacturer for that low a price. Nope. I love how "anti-Apple computer" heads always point to being able to "build" a better spec PC for less, as if that's: 1. Something most consumers are willing to even go through and 2. Even a friggin' valid comparison. I mean...honestly...comparing a tower build to an all-in-one unit is pretty ridiculous. Comparing the laptops against other laptops is absolutely valid, but comparing an all-in-one line to ready built PC tower models or to user tower builds is asinine, and yet that's what I always come across from the "anti-Apple" crowd, who crow about Apple fanboys but are just as bad. Here's an idea: Go find me an all-in-one unit with the specs of the fully spec'd out iMac, for a lower price. You can't. Why? There ain't any other 27" all-in-one units with quad core i7's on the market. Furthermore, comparison shop between Dell's XPS One and Apple's iMac, or any other manufacturer with comparable specs. The prices are quite close, but the Mac has (currently) the better specs. Macs were horribly overpriced when they were tower builds, I agree (comparable PCs at the time were much less, and stuff like Amiga and AtariST, IMHO, shat all over those older Macs in terms of capabilities AND price points), and currently the Mac Mini is horribly overpriced as well...but, that said...Macs are very comparable in price points to comparable laptops and all-in-one units from other manufacturers.
...they still all look expensive to me. Even the lowest stuff seems out of my price range... maybe I'm missing something.
I do know about computers but not enough to effectively argue about whether Mac or Windows is better. I just think that Apple's computers are beautiful on the outside but Windows looks better than Leopard
Computers as a whole, or just Macs? Again, compare these all-in-ones: Lenovo IdeaCentre Dell XPS Studio HP Touchsmart series Apple iMac iMac is price competitive, often packs the better processors across the range, but lacks stuff like touchscreen (Apple has that new Magic Mouse standard, but still, touchscreen would be nice) and BD-ROM support (not an absolute necessity, but, y'know...it would be nice for indie and student filmmakers to actually have HD discs for their HD movies edited on Final Cut ). Comparing all-in-ones against each other is valid. And that's where the comparison with iMacs should lie. For the laptops, compare those with comparable specs AND comparable battery life. The Macs might be more expensive than some, less expensive than others. I have seen Windows laptops with Macbook Pro like specs for more after all, or the same...but sans the same sort of battery life. I've also seen the reverse on the lower end of the Macbook line (Macbook and 13" Macbook "Pro"). As for the "well I can build my PC for less"...you can probably build a Hackintosh for that same amount of money too. After all, it's not like Macs don't use Intel CPUs and NVidia or ATI GPUs nowadays. And if you're the type of person who is so into building things for less, have at it. Apple doesn't approve, but what they don't know won't hurt them.
@Spiffyone, To me, all Macs are too expensive. And I'm not one of those people that complain if an app costs more than $0.99
But expensive compared to what, exactly? Compared to PC towers? Yes. They're more expensive than tower builds. But they're not tower build computers. They're all-in-ones (the desktops). Windows PC all-in-ones are more expensive than Windows PC tower builds. Why? Because it's an all-in-one. There's more design, manufacturing, shrinking of cores, power efficiency, etc. going on and that comes into the cost. But it's true for both iMacs and Windows all-in-ones from other manufacturers. The only tower build that Apple produces is the Mac Pro, and that uses a quad core Xeon (with ability to put two quad cores in there for a total of eight). But that's they're "professional user" model. It's not a consumer model. The iMacs, however, are their consumer models, and those are all-in-ones. So compare it against Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. all-in-ones. Do that and you'll see that they're not far apart in price, and quite frankly the iMacs offer far more power for as much or a little extra.
It really depends on what you're doing with your computer. If it's just stuff like surfing the net and writing a few documents and working on a few spreadsheets, then, yeah, Macs are too expensive...but, honestly... so are Windows PCs for that matter. If all you're doing is net surfing, office stuff, and maybe watching vids and listening to music, quite frankly you can get by with a bare bones Linux box and not pay either the Apple or Microsoft "tax". You don't need the latest quad core i7s or core2 duos or quads or discrete GPUs or fast HDDs for any of that stuff. That's why it's stated that most people don't even use all of the "power" of their computer: most of that power isn't necessary for "common" usage. But if you're creating websites, or editing video, or making music, then you'll need quite a bit of extra "juice" and a stable system. Compare the Macs and Windows PCs that are tailored for those creative uses and you'll see that they are comparable in price.
