A PC do I want one?

Yup, Macs have always been spendy. And they won't run some games or business application, which are the two most important types of applications for my purposes.

Citadel wrote:

I still haven't decided how much to spend. I kind of want to get one I won't have to even think about upgrading for 2 or 3 years. I want to be able to play the latest during that period but I don't really care about high resolutions. Any advice on a good budget.

If you're in the US, I'd say around $1700-$1800 will get you a reasonable rig that will last for a while. A good guide to use is the arstechnica system guide; the Hot Rod is the box you're more or less looking to emulate. The latest edition is here: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/guides/2008/09/guide-200809.ars/3 .

From this template, I would do a slight upgrade of the graphics card and maybe the motherboard from the given system (no need to go too crazy). That should last you about 2-3 years or so.

After that, I tend to do a rolling upgrade; swap in new components piecemeal as necessary to keep up with the technology. The first component will almost always be the graphics card, then memory, then CPU. You'll want to hang on to your motherboard for as long as you can, so make sure you don't initially get one based on CPU architecture that's not going to be around much longer.

If the arstechnica guide is too out of date, then you'll need to do a little more research. But it will give you a good idea nonetheless.

Citadel wrote:

Notahandle wrote:

Numerous comparison articles in the UK, in both Mac and PC magazines, seem to indicate that Apple pricing is generally on a par with Dell.

Difference £350 (US$525) for a like for like system.

Don't be sucked in by the cult! Macs are notoriously overpriced for what you get. It's the natural consequence of forbidding competition.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Now what games should I check out?

FPS:
The Orange Box (HL2 + Ep 1&2 + Portal)
Fallout 3
Bioshock
Call of Duty 4
Mount & Blade
Crysis (although the second half is crap)
Left4Dead
FEAR (older, but great)

Strategy:
Armageddon Empires
Civilization 4
Total War (various editions)
Disciples 2
Dominions 3

Citadel wrote:
"iMac ... £929.00
Dell ... £579"
Just curious, is that the closest or widest in price comparison?

Shellhead wrote:
"And they won't run some games or business application, which are the two most important types of applications for my purposes."
Some games yes, but the business application argument was total bollocks over a decade ago.

Bullwinkle wrote:
"Macs are notoriously overpriced for what you get."
Ah yes, the standard line to be repeated until the hard of thinking believe it to be true.

Bullwinkle wrote:

Citadel wrote:

Notahandle wrote:

Numerous comparison articles in the UK, in both Mac and PC magazines, seem to indicate that Apple pricing is generally on a par with Dell.

Difference £350 (US$525) for a like for like system.

Don't be sucked in by the cult! Macs are notoriously overpriced for what you get. It's the natural consequence of forbidding competition.

I don't mind paying more if there's enough value. I've used both windows and os x and there is no comparison. Plain and simple. BTW, I seem to remember the prices were more similar in laptops, but it's been quite a while since I checked

Also, Apple computers just last longer. Until a couple of years ago I used my old G3 as video recorder at home and it still works fine under os x. This computer now has 10 years. I'd like to see a windows computer be useful for that long. I'm now using a 4 year old iBook g4 with a broken screen (laptops + small kids = not such a good idea...) with the latest version of os x as a digital television decoder + video recorder. It works wonderfully. Granted, laptops will last less (but that is also true in the windows world...).

A more extreme example is the place I used to work in as a sound technician. When I left in 2004 (and for at least 2 more years) they had a 1995 Mac with a hardware ProTools system for all the audio postproduction work (I'm talking about a professional environment here in a medium TV channel). It wasn't the latest version of the software, but it wasn't an old version either. This system worked pretty well, and from what my old co-worker says (they have since substituted the mac with a pc) it was more stable and crashed less than the one they use now!

If you're running Vista, you can tell Windows which directories to index for searching. Open the Control Panel, type "index" in the search textbox, click Indexing Options, then the Modify button. You'll need administrator access to change the selected locations.

Notahandle wrote:

Ah yes, the standard line to be repeated until the hard of thinking believe it to be true.

BGG's back up, you know.

I don't mind paying more if there's enough value. I've used both windows and os x and there is no comparison. Plain and simple. BTW, I seem to remember the prices were more similar in laptops, but it's been quite a while since I checked

Also, Apple computers just last longer....A more extreme example is the place I used to work in as a sound technician....from what my old co-worker says (they have since substituted the mac with a pc) it was more stable and crashed less than the one they use now!

Comparisions are a little difficult, because the lower priced PCs don't have a lot of the best quality components you can get, whereas the Macs generally do. That's part of what you're paying for. So, on average, a Mac will outperform (and outlast) a PC owned by the average person. When you compare component to component, you are going to pay less for a PC (although not as drastically less as you often hear) because there is more competition, higher availability, and you're not paying as much for the brand.

Another issue is hardware and driver conflicts, which are more prevalent with PCs (again, a natural consequence of more possible configurations). This tends to cause problems that a lot of people interpret as a need for new hardware, when that's not really the issue.

Beyond that, The issue isn't the hardware, it's the applications. My stepmother has a PC from the last decade and it runs XP just fine. But she doesn't use it for anything demanding. Macs are great for certain apps, but they simply don't match up in business apps or games.

Bullwinkle wrote:

Macs are great for certain apps, but they simply don't match up in business apps or games.

Well, I don't know about business apps as I don't use those, but for anything related to media (audio/video) the mac is clearly more suitable and stable. At least that's been my experience working with audio...

About games, it's true that you get more major releases on windows, but I really like the mac shareware scene, companies like Ambrosia Software (check out Escape Velocity which I think at some point may have been ported to windows), Spiderweb Software with their long running isometric RPG series such as Avernum and Geneforce, and many others. Also, thanks to os x being basically a unix system, there are lots of cool open source programs (including many games) available. Anyway, it's all a matter of taste, since I'm not that attracted to those major pc-only games, and usually would rather play games on the wii or ds. When I play a game on the computer it is usually something quite different to those (like nethack or other roguelikes and smaller games like those I mentioned above).

maka wrote:

...companies like Ambrosia Software (check out Escape Velocity which I think at some point may have been ported to windows), Spiderweb Software with their long running isometric RPG series such as Avernum and Geneforce, and many others.

Yeah, a number of these indie developers are quite clever, like Spiderweb. They gain themselves quite a devoted following--and the attendant steady stream of revenue--by supplying game-poor Mac users.

I've been meaning to check out Escape Velocity Nova for quite some time. I'm nearly finished the first Avernum. That's some old-school goodness. As in 1987.

Bullwinkle wrote:

Notahandle wrote:

I don't mind paying more if there's enough value. I've used both windows and os x and there is no comparison. Plain and simple. BTW, I seem to remember the prices were more similar in laptops, but it's been quite a while since I checked

Also, Apple computers just last longer....A more extreme example is the place I used to work in as a sound technician....from what my old co-worker says (they have since substituted the mac with a pc) it was more stable and crashed less than the one they use now!

Comparisions are a little difficult, because the lower priced PCs don't have a lot of the best quality components you can get, whereas the Macs generally do. That's part of what you're paying for. So, on average, a Mac will outperform (and outlast) a PC owned by the average person. When you compare component to component, you are going to pay less for a PC (although not as drastically less as you often hear) because there is more competition, higher availability, and you're not paying as much for the brand.

I see this argument a lot so I had to comment.

Apple, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer- they all use the same components for the most part. The hard drives are the same, the RAM is the same- generally the biggest difference other than the exterior is in the design of the chassis (ie, the layout inside) and the motherboard. Layout is one of the most important decisions, especially in laptops as heat generation and the removal of it are key to component life. But you'll see that all manufacturers have hardware issues. You'll find more reports of non-Apple systems simply because there are so many more out in the field.

The advantage that Apple has over other manufacturers is software compatibility- Apples have a small, tightly controlled set of hardware options available so writing drivers is much easier. Non-Apple systems that run Windows or Linux have to content with a myriad of hardware options- video cards, sound cards, network, etc.

From a hardware perspective however, there really isn't much difference in component quality.

Oh, my ... "Macs are spendy." Yeesh. It's not 1997 any more, guys.

Fair warnings to whoever is asking the original question (I refuse to read all of this; I've seen it 10,000 times before):

1. Make sure the comparisons are actually attempting to compare the same thing. This is a very, very rare thing. Most of these "comparisons" I've ever seen are ridiculous attempts by pro-PC types to distort reality. The contortions they'll go through to compare allegedly "identical" systems are nothing short of astonishing.

2. Be sure to add in the extra costs on the PC side. Anti-virus software springs to mind immediately ... and this is a mandatory purchase (with likely mandatory upgrades throughout the life of the computer) for any PC user who wants to use his computer for more than, say, 36 hours. Note, again, how the pro-PC comparisons will never mention anti-virus software ... or higher-cost and more frequent repairs ... or anything else that conflicts with somehow "proving" their pricing argument.

Also ask your PC friends about included software ... and things like built-in iSight cameras being included with every Mac that's being shipped today.

3. It's all the same internet. Again, it's not 1997; people aren't buying computers to make databases of their recipes. They buy to get on the internet, end of story. So if you can find a computer you like (PC, Mac, whatever) that will get you there, then buy it. The only difference is going to be some minor look-and-feel issues, but an iMac running Safari is going to take you to the same internet as a Dell running IE. All of this comparison bullshit is really just so much noise when most computer buyers are thinking, "Here's what I can spend; I'd like a nice machine, but I really just need reliable internet access."

4. The comparison game can be played both ways. Here's just one example: a Macworld article showing the old Mac Pro was more than $1,300 less expensive than the comparable Dell machine.

www.macworld.com/article/52381/2006/08/macproprice.html

I used to have a bunch of articles like that one saved, but I started getting rid of them when I realized I was hearing less and less of the "Macs are sooooooo spendy" nonsense. Looks like I should have hung onto them ... at least for use around here.

Turn your calendar, guys.

TheDukester wrote:

2. Be sure to add in the extra costs on the PC side. Anti-virus software springs to mind immediately ... and this is a mandatory purchase (with likely mandatory upgrades throughout the life of the computer) for any PC user who wants to use his computer for more than, say, 36 hours. Note, again, how the pro-PC comparisons will never mention anti-virus software ... or higher-cost and more frequent repairs ... or anything else that conflicts with somehow "proving" their pricing argument.

I'm not using any "mandatory" antivirus software. All I use are Vista's built-in Defender and Firewall, which are free and turned-on by default. I've been using the computer for a lot longer than 36 hours.

A great post on why the Mac vs PC price comparisons are stupid:

lowendmac.com/fishkin/07/0109.html

And it's from an Apple advocate to boot.

Don't start this fight. It's been fought before by better and with no result.