Anyone switching back?

May 27, 2010 3:25 PM

Why do Macbooks cost so much more than Windows notebooks? Now that Microsoft has gotten it right with Windows 7, is the Macbook still worth it?

Please, let me say from the beginning, I am not interested in an Apple Fanboy vs. PCs ROOL! Macs are teh SUXXORS flame war here.

I used PCs for years, until the spring of 2006, when I bought a Macbook. Other than the cracking top plate, it has been a wonderful device which has really helped me to do some very good and helpful stuff at work, especially using iMovie and iDVD.

Yet for the first time in a while, I have been paying attention to the price of Windows 7 notebooks, and OH MAN I cannot believe what you can buy in a PC not versus what a refurbished Macbook Pro costs.

Why is this? My theories are:

1. Apple charges more because, let's face it, they can.

2. It is supply and demand. Since so many companies can make Windows notebooks, it drives the price down.

3. These $700 Windows notebooks are made of crap components with a high likelihood of failure (as my last nightmare of a Windows notebook was, except I paid twice that for it).

4. Once you factor in the cost of MS Office (versus iWork), the price isn't that different.

5. Some combination of 1-4.

6. I don't know what I'm talking about, and that is where you come in.

Granted, I love the Mac. It has been so trouble-free, and I can spend less time dealing with registry keys and more time just getting stuff done, but 7 is a good OS, and I'm wondering if the Apple tax has gotten a little high. I have the luxury of using any OS I want for work, so I just want to keep all my options open.

Has any one else wondered this, or does anyone else have any insight on it? Have you made the decision to switch from the Mac to the PC?

Thanks, as always, for your help and insight.

posted by 4ster to computers & internet (61 answers total)

1 and 2 seem correct to me.

I can't speak to the other points you make, but 1 & 2 are basic economics.
posted by dfriedman at 3:27 PM on May 27, 2010

An example of what I mean.

This versus this.
posted by 4ster at 3:30 PM on May 27, 2010

Sorry. The second link did not work. The PC is a $630 Toshiba with:

Toshiba Satellite Laptop with Intel® Core™ i3 Processor
12-cell lithium-ion battery
Intel® Core™ i3-330M processor
Features a 3MB L3 cache and 2.13GHz processor speed.
Intel® Core i3 processor
Features smart 4-way processing performance for HD quality computing. Intel® HD Graphics provide extra graphics power for your laptop when you need it.
4GB DDR3 memory
For multitasking power, expandable to 8GB.
Multiformat DVD±RW/CD-RW drive with double-layer support
16" TFT-LCD high-definition widescreen display
With TruBrite technology and 1366 x 768 clarity. Native support for 720p content.
500GB Serial ATA hard drive (5400 rpm)
Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator HD
posted by 4ster at 3:34 PM on May 27, 2010

Why do Macbooks cost so much more than Windows notebooks?

Mostly the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The hardware options and warranty support are better, dollar for dollar, and the operating system is integrated more closely with the hardware.

Then, once you start factoring extras like Windows 7 (when you need an edition with more features than the bundled Home usually packaged with laptops, like support for Windows XP applications) and MS Office licenses, Firewire, digital audio output, warranty support, etc. it becomes a more level comparison.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:38 PM on May 27, 2010

Apple has perfected the art of balancing size, weight and function, and this plays heavily in people's decisions.

The Macbook Pro you link to is 4.5 pounds. It's very light and svelte. The Satellite you describe about is 2 pounds heavier and substantially more bulky. The Macbook pro is aluminum and rigid. The Satellite is plastic, and feels less solid.

This distinction becomes even more dramatic, both in terms of price and form factor, with the larger Macbook Pros. When you want a laptop that's as light and as small as a 15" or 17" Macbook Pro, with the same amount of power and the same size screen, you're generally looking at a specialty laptop like a Dell Adamo or HP Envy which will cost around the same as Apple's products. You can get the same functions much cheaper with a Windows 7 laptop. But you can rarely get the combination of size, weight and function substantially cheaper -- to save money, you generally have to make a trade-off of some sort.

While many people talk about how the iPod became the #1 MP3 player because of ease of use, my feeling is that it was mostly a matter of size. Apple had first dibs on Toshiba's 1.8" hard drives when they first came to market, so the iPod was the only MP3 player as small as it was with as much storage as it had. Apple was able to continue to do that -- make sure the iPod had a slightly smaller, lighter form factor to any other MP3 player -- for the first several years of its life cycle.

People generally don't articulate this. People make fun of Macs because people look through specifications for Windows laptops, and then walk into the Apple Store and fall in love with Apple's fancy, pretty laptops. But in reality, those fancy, pretty laptops are generally a bit smaller and lighter for what they do than the cheaper laptops. And for many people, that's worth paying for.
posted by eschatfische at 3:47 PM on May 27, 2010 [15 favorites]

The fit and finish and the small but exclusive touches of Apple's machines can, for some users, justify their price. One example is the magnetic power connector, which protects your computer from flying across the room when you trip over the power cord. Does this feature justify the MacBook Pro's $500-ish premium over an otherwise comparable PC? No, but if you want that feature, the Mac is the only computer that has it and so if you can afford the Mac, you may choose it. Similarly, which Windows notebooks have bodies machined from a single piece of aluminum, with the corresponding solidity this grants? None. Which Windows notebooks come with a multi-touch, clickable trackpad supported at the OS level? None. If those features are valuable to you, then you will be drawn to the Mac. The overall Mac experience is still just plain nicer, and considered as a monthly cost over the life of the machine, a few hundred bucks' premium is no big deal.

Windows 7 is a fine OS. I use it at work and would not hesitate to buy a PC laptop. (In fact, I did buy a PC laptop, a tiny Fujitsu touch-screen convertible tablet. Just as no PC laptop is exactly like a MacBook Pro, no Mac matches the Fujitsu exactly.) Apple does, however, provide major Mac OS X updates more frequently than Microsoft does Windows. A good chunk of the price differential goes into OS development. Microsoft gets something like $50 for the copy of Windows installed on a new PC; Apple doesn't have the volume, so the allocated OS cost per machine is higher.

It all comes down to what you value in a machine and how much you are willing to pay for a computer that is exactly what you want. If a PC notebook has everything you want and you don't value any of the extras, then by all means go ahead and get one. If the Mac has features you just gotta have (for many, the UNIX underpinnings are just that sort of thing) then you get a Mac.
posted by kindall at 3:52 PM on May 27, 2010 [5 favorites]

There are a few PC laptops with keyboards as nice as what you'll find on Macbooks, but most PC laptop keyboards are awful, and most PC laptop users simply don't know better. That's not meant as a slam. In fact, I was that guy, keyboard wise. I had a typical crappy keyboard and thought it was fine because it was what I knew and was used to. Once I used a keyboard like the ones in the Macbooks, anything less is annoying as hell. Clunky, squishy, unresponsive and unpredictable. When I bought a PC laptop, I stupidly did not take that into account. I like everything about my PC laptop except for the OS (I needed XP specifically) and the god awful but typical laptop keyboard.

If you're digging Windows 7, then by all means, buy a PC laptop... but don't sacrifice a quality keyboard.
posted by 2oh1 at 4:06 PM on May 27, 2010

I've been eyeing the exact same two computers for a couple weeks now.

I think eschatfische hit the nail on the head...you're paying for design and ease of use. The promise of no viruses and a pretty, solid, lightweight laptop tends to sell a lot of computers. I think your numbers 1, 2 and 4 are all correct.

Personally - I'm leaning towards the Toshiba. I don't drag my laptop around much, so the extra weight isn't the end of the world. I only really use it for internet, word processing, and watching movies, so I don't have any huge need for iMovie, GarageBand, etc. And since it's not my main work computer, I think I can get by on Google Docs and Open Office, thus saving me the MS Office cost.

What would you be using the computer for and how portable do you need it to be?
posted by JannaK at 4:08 PM on May 27, 2010

I think warranty support is a huge part of this. I always factor in the 79 dollar APplecare charge into my purchase because it is 3 years of perfect support. 3 entire years. In the computer industry!
posted by lakerk at 4:08 PM on May 27, 2010

Squaretrade did a laptop reliability study last year, and Toshiba came out far better than Apple.

For what it's worth, I recently purchased a new notebook for work, and the Mac fanboys among my circle of friends were pushing me HARD in that direction. I went in to the Apple store, and I have to admit, I was impressed as hell with the quality of the MBP I tried. Ultimately, though, I went with a Lenovo Edge for three reasons:

1) The price - I could buy three of the machine I bought for the price of one 15" MBP w/Applecare.

2) The squaretrade reliability study cited above. (yes, Lenovo did worse. At a third of the price, I would expect that. Furthermore my experience with Lenovo notebooks says otherwise - and they were also lumping in consumer models with corporate, which skews the curve somewhat there.)

3) Apple doesn't make a model in the size I wanted (14" - 15 is too big for me to open and comfortably type on an airplane tray table, and 13 is WAY too small). I mention this only because it appears that you're in the same boat, comparing a 16" notebook, with no comparable Mac.
posted by deadmessenger at 4:17 PM on May 27, 2010

I think warranty support is a huge part of this. I always factor in the 79 dollar APplecare charge into my purchase because it is 3 years of perfect support. 3 entire years. In the computer industry!

79? According to Apple's website, it's $349.
posted by deadmessenger at 4:18 PM on May 27, 2010

My Dell Inspiron (and the three I bought for my children and wife) cost a total of about $1,000 for all three. Each and every one of them has had a warranty repair. Each and every one of them has also had an issue *after* the warranty expired (touchpad, monitor, motherboard, USB ports) which required that I spend money. The moral of this story is, you get what you pay for. Buy the Mac.
posted by brownrd at 4:19 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

Agree with what others have said. Build and hardware quality, plus vertical integration of hardware-OS-software. It just works. The only time any of my Macs have problems is with 3rd party software, and that's very rare. (Not to get into this argument, but Flash is what usually leads to software crashes.)

The closest analogy I can come up with is closing a new car's door. A cheap car will clatter a bit. A nice car will almost sound vacuum-sealed. Same with a laptop's screen. I swear the new Macbook Pros close with a quiet Thhhhoooooop sound. (Well, okay, I probably make that noise in my head.)

Same with trying to bend/twist the unibody Macbooks versus any plastic PC. It just feels... solid. Attachments too-- apart from a few well-publicized cases, the power adapter is idiot-proof, unlike a PC that ages a few years and then has to undergo cord yoga so that it stays plugged in.

It really depends on the lifespan you have in mind plus how much you're going to schlep it around. Mostly home use for three years = PC. Taking it everywhere for six years = Mac.
posted by supercres at 4:20 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

Go and pick up and feel the computers you're comparing. The cheap-o PC clones will feel cheap. Like a Hyundai versus a BMW. The specs on paper will look the same, but build quality is higher.

That's not to say all PC clone laptops are shit: Thinkpads are amazing and I'd recommend one to anybody that really favors Windows over Mac. But those ain't cheap either.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 4:29 PM on May 27, 2010

I will recommend that, before you make a decision OS-wise, consider the laptop hardware when comparing pricing. My Macbook Pro (titanium case) has been dropped and stepped on by children more times than I care to admit, and the case is starting to look a bit bent in places, but it's still intact and fully functional. By comparison, I've had two PC laptops with plastic cases become useless in a fairly short time from far less abuse.

Similarly, consider that someone using OS X doesn't have nearly the issues with viruses and whatnot that a Windows user has; granted, with a knowledgeable user this is less of a benefit, but for your average user, it's a big deal -- in the last year I've had to fix four virus-infected Windows machines (two unbootable, and I only recovered three of the four) owned by friends, and no OS X machines, even though I know fewer Windows users.

Finally, there's a certain amount of cache that comes from owning a premium fashion-oriented product, and you're paying for that, too. Rolex versus Casio; they both tell time, after all.

So it's not a question of whether one is worth more, but whether one is worth more to you based on the perceived benefits versus final cost.
posted by davejay at 4:29 PM on May 27, 2010

Never underestimate peoples' desire to self-identify by the material goods they use. Luxury goods are expensive not because they're better, but because their marketers are skilled at convincing people that by buying product "X", they're buying into an exclusive club, or culture, or identity.

Macs are certainly different, but they're objectively not better. You're paying for image.

It's not a popular thing to say but there, I said it.
posted by klanawa at 4:32 PM on May 27, 2010 [7 favorites]

That's not to say all PC clone laptops are shit: Thinkpads are amazing and I'd recommend one to anybody that really favors Windows over Mac. But those ain't cheap either.

I bought a Thinkpad Edge last week for $679+tax. And that was at a retail outlet (*coughWorstbuycough*) not known for competitive pricing.
posted by deadmessenger at 4:33 PM on May 27, 2010

79? According to Apple's website, it's $349.

A MacBook AppleCare plan is $189 for three years.. You can get it even cheaper via eBay.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:34 PM on May 27, 2010

Great question, I'm in the same boat. I appreciate the info re: Toshiba. I bought a VAIO laptop over a year ago because it was a great closeout price at the time and my VAIO desktop has hummed along without a hitch for 7 years. Suffice it to say I was sorely disappointed with my laptop and was actually kind of relieved when my two year old dumped water into it and destroyed it.

For me the Mac build quality and keyboard are impressive and I like the idea of having a machine that can run a legit MacOS install as well as Ubuntu and W7. I do want a Blu Ray drive and HDMI outputs and will have to see how Apple is coming along in that arena.

I have a Dell laptop graveyard in my basement. Stay away from them, IMHO. I have had good second hand experience with Toshiba.

I also like the idea of buying a clean, svelte, appealing system loaded with great apps like iPhoto and little-to-no crapware installed. Yeah you can install Windows yourself from base and make your own image, but still: it's quite a value-added proposition to get a Mac for the software load. Time Machine is quite appealing too.
posted by aydeejones at 4:35 PM on May 27, 2010

From the front page bit of your question I was all ready to come in here and say that you clearly hadn't ever used a mac, since the build quality clearly blows everything else out of the water. Seeing your actual question I'll have to adjust my answer.

Windows 7 is awesome... compared to Vista (and even XP). It's still not as usable as OSX. If you have some piece of software that you use all the time that has to be run in windows then yeah, you're probably better off with a windows laptop, otherwise no, the mac still beats it.

I would never ever have classed myself as an apple fanboy, in fact I've stood on the other side of the fence (throwing rocks) in the past, but I love the machines they make. To answer your question, no, I haven't considered changing back. In fact I've even switched my desktop to an iMac.

On preview, "objectively not better", seriously? You can't just compare machine specs and say that that's an objective comparison. And no, mac bashing is a very popular thing to do. An Apple computer is not a ralph lauren polo shirt.
posted by muteh at 4:38 PM on May 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

A MacBook AppleCare plan is $189 for three years.. You can get it even cheaper via eBay.

I was comparing the plan for the 15" MBP, which is the Apple most comparable to the specs of the Toshiba the OP listed. Interesting that Applecare is available third-party, as well - I thought Apple had rules about undercutting them?
posted by deadmessenger at 4:39 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

If you compare them feature for feature (including warranty), the price becomes much more equivalent.

Also, you can't compare "Windows" hardware to "Mac" hardware. There is HUGE variety in the Windows marketplace. Any clown can slap together some components and call it a Windows machine. Lumping them in with the higher end Windows machines just isn't fair.

Also, the "guts" are the same. Same hard drives, processors, memory, various chipsets, displays, etc. They all come from Intel, Seagate, ATI, LG or whoever.

To use the car analogy, it's not Chevy versus Mercedes, it's [Everyone Else] versus Mercedes.

If you want a PC with build quality comparable to a Mac, buy a machine from one of the various commercial lines.
posted by gjc at 4:40 PM on May 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

HDMI outputs

You know you can get mini display port to HDMI adaptors?
posted by muteh at 4:43 PM on May 27, 2010

There are a couple or so inaccuracies here re: viruses but your question pertains to why do macs cost more?

When I think of the net income for apple and it being small compared to Microsoft by about $10billion at this time I think of market share i.e. the number of computers it is installed on.

Because mac controls hardware and software, there is no comparison with another computer maker, hence the premium can be controlled by apple without any competition.

The best way for Apple to increase the net income is to do what it does best, roll out new products every year with tweaks and keep the prices high because the consumers do support it.

Finally, you are buying into an image along with a few noticable and very useful user oriented tweaks (like the magnetic power cable, expose, etc) that make the user interface all the more better when comparing it to the registry errors etc that PCs have been known for when it comes to the average user.

I personally have a lust for macs but I cannot afford it on my budget and have been working long enough on PCs that I know if I am an aware consumer of the crazy amount of software available, I can go without hiccups running my PC.
posted by iNfo.Pump at 4:49 PM on May 27, 2010

Sorry. The second link did not work. The PC is a $630 Toshiba with

If you're going to simply go down a features/price list, windows will win. It's been that way for years. And if that's what impresses you, you'd be better off with a windows machine.

And yet, macs still do very well. Some will say that it's all marketing. That's B.S. I certainly wouldn't try to convince anyone to spend more for a mac. But for me, it's worth it. It's not one thing, it's a better overall experience for me. And anything that I'm spending at least a couple of hours on a day quality is important to me. I'm not sure that can be put into words. If you don't feel it yourself, it won't mean anything.

(I can't even imagine putting a macbook in the same category as a netbook. In fact, I'd rather scratch my eyes out than use a netbook, which shows, each to his own.)
posted by Dennis Murphy at 4:49 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

Finally, you are buying into an image

Example A. I don't give a damn about image. Making a blanket statement that people that use macs are 'buying into an image' is nonsense, unless that image is one of using a piece of hardware and software that works together beautifully.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 4:53 PM on May 27, 2010 [7 favorites]

I can't imagine that this question has not been answered thousands of times everywhere, but it boils down to build quality and integration. Laptops are collections of parts, combined by the choice of an OEM and by a small but significant amount of plastic, aluminum, or what have you. Macs have a collection of parts that are well-tested together and tied together by solid software. They also have very well-designed aluminum or plastic surrounding these parts.

I think that the best example of this difference is not in Mac vs Windows but in Linux - people who use Linux and work at jobs where they have their choice of laptops and operating systems (Google, other friendly companies) - tend to choose either Apple, IBM, Toshiba or, in rare situations, System76 or similar. Now that ThinkPad is controlled by Lenovo and quality has markedly decreased, Macs are the best-built computers out there - removing the advantages and disadvantages of the two most popular operating systems.

As far as 'what you get' with one of the other - it pains me to hear about people who will only buy Macs if they have blu-ray drives, or high-end graphics cards, or some other something that is apparently so insanely necessary that it's more important than computers themselves. What matters is that all laptops break, and they break soon. The cycle is 1-4 years. What you buy with a MacBook is the possibility that the laptop will last longer than a comparable system with less-integrated components and a less sturdy shell, and this advantage - twenty or fifty percent of a difference - is what can easily justify the cost difference.
posted by tmcw at 4:55 PM on May 27, 2010

I bought a Thinkpad Edge last week for $679+tax. And that was at a retail outlet (*coughWorstbuycough*) not known for competitive pricing.

I just bought one of these too. It has a lot of the features people seem to like about Macs - quality construction (or so it appears, ask me in three years), a really good keyboard, multitouch trackpad.
posted by PercussivePaul at 5:13 PM on May 27, 2010

I have used windows/linux forever and I got a macbook pro about 6 months ago because I was curious, I think the iphone is a great device, and work was paying for it. Now I sort of regret it and I doubt I would pay for one myself.

Hardware:
Yeah, the build quality is great but I never had problems with my ugly looking plastic PC laptops falling apart so that's not a big deal to me. The keyboard has two dedicated keys to dim and brighten the keyboard backlight but they couldn't find room for both backspace and delete keys? Super irritating. The touchpad is great, better than any PC one I've used but maybe PCs have caught up lately, I don't know. Do not get an external apple mouse or keyboard, they are terrible.

Software:
I am constantly annoyed by OS differences that are strange and unfamiliar to me, even after 6 months. The overall usability does not seem better than Windows. I was really expecting better after years of hearing people talk about the usability of the OS over Windows, but in my opinion it's just as occasionally buggy, re-learning conventions is really annoying, and some design decisions do seem objectively stupid compared to Windows (and vice versa I suppose). So I'd rate them both about equal.

I think there is in general higher overall quality and commitment to vision on Apple's part, and the higher price seems reasonable from that standpoint, but it's hard to defend in terms of whether the final experience is actually that much better. But that's just my opinion and I think I'm in the minority. I'm also a programmer and I may spend my computer time differently than you. Also, my laptop already feels sluggish as hell sometimes and I doubt I'll use it for 4 years even if the hardware lasts that long.
posted by Post-it Goat at 5:19 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

I switched back to Windows for my latest notebook. I had a 12 inch Powerbook (and previously had an iMac). I’ve been running a Windows desktop for the past 2.5 years, but used my Powerbook concurrently. Now I’m totally Windows only. Here was my story:

I bought my Powerbook back in 2004. It was only TRULY usable for 3.5 years – afterward it couldn’t handle Flash, and iTunes began to run sluggishly, which really eliminated the laptop as a primary computer. I paid $1400 +$249 (warranty) + $100 (1GB RAM) = $1749, or approximately $500/year. Now, it was a great little machine. Nothing went wrong, looked beautiful, and was very portable. But $500/year for a computer, when I only used it for web browsing, music, movies, and Microsoft Office stuff, is pretty freaking expensive.

After 3.5 years, I finally realized that I needed a cheap computer just to get stuff done, so I bought a $500 Dell Core 2 Duo. It’ll last 5 years, chug along doing the same things my Powerbook did, at a cost of $100/year.

This brings me to my latest purchase: a Sony Y-Series Laptop. It runs a ultra low voltage Core2Duo processor. It cost me $749. The laptop is gorgeous. Magnesium finish, Chiclet keyboard (Sony had it before Apple did), 4GBs RAM, HDMI port, weighs 3.9 pounds, and feels very solid. I expect it to last 3 years, or $249/year. So basically, I bought TWO computers and paid LESS than my original Powerbook. Heck, I could buy a Sony Y-Series every two years and come out better than buying a Macbook Pro and keeping it for FOUR years.

Of course, buying laptops isn’t completely about dollars and cents. It took me a couple of months to settle on the Y-Series because I wasn’t sure about purchasing a computer with an ultra low voltage computer. But there were quite a few options. The Dell Latitude and Lenovo ThinkPad offer power and lightness with slightly less desirable aesthetics. The Dell Studio and several Sonys were nice alternatives, but heavy (and the Studio had crappy mouse buttons). The HP Envy was a great machine, but, like Apple, overpriced for what it offered. Apple may have the best aesthetic appeal and all-around functionality (which I actually dispute, since it doesn’t have BluRay, it doesn’t have HDMI out, it doesn’t have SSD in some models, and it doesn’t have Core i3 in the 13 inch), but it makes you pay out the nose for it, relegating it to a conspicuous consumption purpose, in my mind.

So basically, yeah, there are several Windows machines out there that are better alternatives to Apple precisely because they can offer most of what you need for significantly lower cost. If you want EVERYTHING, guess what, no one offers it. The Sony Z series comes the closest, in my mind, and I almost bought it, but for $1900, again, you pay through the nose for conspicuous consumption. If you’re into that, Apple wins every time. They’ve done a phenomenal job convincing people that their product is technically superior to the competition (while being the prettiest). Turns out they’re pretty good. But you’re paying for brand and aesthetics, not technical superiority. On that front, they’re only slightly above average.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:21 PM on May 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

My reason for sticking with Macs is very simple: time. I have used Windows extensively, and I am not a loyalist to any platform, but it comes down to time. I have never had a virus on my Windows machines... but why? Because I was very careful to always attend to that aspect - regularly running free anti-virus software, keeping on top of definitions updates, regularly (daily!) running free anti-adware software (2 kinds) and keeping on top of definitions updates for those too. But you know what? It's aggravating and time consuming. I have no such tasks with the Macs (so far - one day, perhaps soon this may change as Macs become a tempting target). With the Mac, I can just sit down and work. With the Windows machines I have to fuss with maintenance like with a temperamental car. I like my cars and my computers to just run with a minimum of fuss - but that's me... for some, the fussing is a big part of the fun. The time I've saved from not running all that software to keep Windows virus and ad free is totally worth a few hundred extra bucks - to me. I'm not even talking about the horror some people subject themselves to with anti-virus software running full time in the background (brrr - I never did that), sucking resources and destabilizing their system.
posted by VikingSword at 5:22 PM on May 27, 2010 [5 favorites]

I bought a MacBook Pro because i got tired of spending hundreds of dollars on antivirus software, constantly having to run scans, and still getting viruses.
posted by Sara Anne at 5:25 PM on May 27, 2010 [8 favorites]

You know you can get mini display port to HDMI adaptors?

Yeah; audio was a concern, but I guess that's been addressed:

"On 13 April 2010, Apple added support for audio out using Mini DisplayPort in their MacBook Pro product line"

Mini DisplayPort on Wikipedia
posted by aydeejones at 5:30 PM on May 27, 2010

Assuming the adapter carries the audio signal along to HDMI, that's pretty cool. Not a big fan of having to use dongles, but it's an understandable trade-off for svelte-ness.
posted by aydeejones at 5:32 PM on May 27, 2010

Ustabe that professional designers would get locked into an OS with their software. Once you buy a mac, you have to keep upgrading mac, because you have the mac version of Photoshop, Quark, etc. (To say nothing of all the fonts.) I'm no longer a professional designer, so I don't know if there are cross-platform upgrade discounts now, or what.

Macs come with free software: iMovie, GarageBand, etc. Once they hook you with those (very fine) apps, it gets harder to consider moving to a new platform.

I hear you: I inherited one Windows netbook that is cheap and convenient, but I'm still nursing along a 2002 iMac because it will run the stuff we know how to use.
posted by rikschell at 5:59 PM on May 27, 2010

One thing I've not seen mentioned is that because Apple so tightly controls the hardware, a given Mac will be supported by the OS for a much longer time than your standard PC.

For example, I have a three-year-old MacBook. It runs the latest Mac OS with no trouble. A top-end Windows laptop, three years on, may not be supported as well by Windows 2013.

One other thing not mentioned [again, if this is important to you] is that you can run Windows, Mac OS X, and linux on the same hardware; no VMWare or other emulation involved. Doing this without having to to carry two machines might be worth the "Mac tax".
posted by chazlarson at 6:09 PM on May 27, 2010

Personally, I think your first point sums it up pretty well: They charge that much because they can. They're generally good, well designed machines, and they don't feel cheap, which goes some way to accounting for the "Apple tax", but the range is also very limited – and they're pretty much all presented as premium machines.

If you want a Mac, or have already invested in the Mac-compatible software ecosystem, you have to buy one of Apple's computers. You don't have any choice. So you're going to pay Apple prices.

In various corners of the 'net there are long and ongoing flamewars about whether Apple will/should sell a low-end computer that allows interchangeable parts. At present, if you want a desktop, your choices are the very specialised Mini, the all-in-one iMac, or the super-expensive Mac Pro – there is no mid-range enthusiast machine. Personally, I think that's a pretty deliberate decision on Apple's part – Apple like to control the experience, and they present that as a premium experience. It's their way or the highway, so to speak :-)

(disclaimer: I haven't so much as touched a Windows machine in years, so feel free to assume whatever biases that implies.)
posted by damonism at 6:21 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

A top-end Windows laptop, three years on, may not be supported as well by Windows 2013.

I think if you look at the backwards compatibility metric, PC-compatible comes out ahead. Windows OS installers come with a LOT of drivers. The only reason Vista and 7 wouldn't run on an older machine is speed, not compatibility. I'm sure the same will be true of any OS that MS rolls out in three years.
posted by gjc at 6:33 PM on May 27, 2010

For example, I have a three-year-old MacBook. It runs the latest Mac OS with no trouble. A top-end Windows laptop, three years on, may not be supported as well by Windows 2013.

Funny you would mention this: Apple left people with 3-year-old machines in the lurch last August, by no longer supporting the PowerPC architecture, discontinued in August, 2006, in Snow Leopard. If you hadn't bought a new Intel mac in the interim, you were SOL if you wanted to upgrade.

Incidentally, I just gave my daughter the five-year-old Dell D610 that I just replaced, and it's running Win7 Home. The only thing I had to do to it was max out the memory at 2GB, at a total cost of about $40.
posted by deadmessenger at 6:45 PM on May 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

The hardware differences have been covered very well above, but I'd like to add that if you want to run OS X legitimately, your only option is a Mac. With the mac you can also legitimately run Windows, either in Boot Camp or in a virtual machine. The same is not true of a Windows machine.

I'd also like to take exception with the idea that Windows 7 is somehow an improvement. From a power-user perspective it's infuriating. It also remains unpolished in a variety of ways. Consider the way popup notifications are handled in the taskbar, or the way the language bar fucks up the start menu height. Sure, it's a bunch of little stuff, but it literally drives me crazy to have to work on 7 machines.
posted by odinsdream at 6:46 PM on May 27, 2010

Honestly, the premium is for the things truly proprietary to Apple:

chassis/manufacturing (one piece aluminum)
battery (nonremoveable square cell)
OSX

everything else (CPU, graphics card, motherboard, chipset, hard drives, RAM, fans, heatsinks, and to some extent the LCD) are common to other laptop manufacturers. Apple doesn't get any special CPUs from Intel or GPUs from Nvidia--in fact, they tend to lag behind the industry in adopting new hardware line.

But for the things that most people care about--size, weight, screen quality, battery life, ease of use--Apple personally designs those things. That's what you pay for.
posted by chalbe at 6:57 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

$700 gets you a lot of PC for a laptop. Heck, a first non-netbook $400 PC gets you a machine that will last for a few years - plus, in two years *if* it needs replacement, you can replace it again with a second $400 PC with minimal guilt. Incidentally that replacement PC (in 2 years) will put today's $1100 PC laptops to shame...

Craptops rock. You minimize the guilt if something goes wrong and there is very little that they can't do today.
posted by Nanukthedog at 7:24 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

I switched back. Bought a late-2006 macbook (I'd only used Windows machines previously) for around $1500. After two complete hard-drive failures and a screen that started flickering and then refused to turn on at all, I cut my losses and bought a Toshiba Satellite in December. The cost to fix the screen on the macbook would have been $500 - the new Windows 7 Toshiba cost $549. The keyboard kinda blows, but I was able to reassign some of the problematic keys so it works more naturally for my typing position (bonus: it has a number pad!).

No complaints about Windows 7 either - MS Security Essentials works very well for antivirus (although I don't think I've had a virus since the 90's anyway, so it's not really my top concern). Out of the box it was all set up within 15 minutes, it has a huge hard drive and is fast as hell.

Sure, the macbook is more aesthetically appealing, but I didn't find the user interface to even remotely come close to justifying the price difference. Using Office on the macbook was misery, and iphoto is horrid. I really liked Time Machine though.
posted by raxast at 8:14 PM on May 27, 2010

I came here specifically to point out that "Now that Microsoft has gotten it right with Windows 7" looks like a great example of begging the question.
posted by ymendel at 9:00 PM on May 27, 2010 [5 favorites]

Hasn't this already been done to death in a million places?

Anyway, I guess I'll bite. I see it as a mix of 1 (they can) and 3 (higher quality). Apple uses higher quality components for the motherboard, the screen, the keyboard, the ram, the hard drive than your average low end notebook. They also have niceties which are difficult to quantify, such as the unibody chassis, the magsafe power cord, multitouch trackpad, and illuminated keyboard. There is the matter of the operating system. While Windows 7 is certainly a step in the right direction, it isn't Unix based. OSX is, in my opinion, almost perfect as a laptop OS. I would never use it on a desktop, but the simplicity and power is still way beyond what Windows has to offer. The only fair comparison for me would be a highly customized Linux install, and I spend enough time on that with my desktop. Basically, they put more money into design, integration, and user experience.

Also, Apple is not particularly interested in selling the cheapest possible notebooks in extremely high volume to the unwashed masses. That is the business of Dell and HP. If you are pinching pennies and you want the cheapest possible thing, don't buy one. They are offering a more tailored product to a market that is clearly responding. Many people have been burned in the past by low quality laptops whose specs looked great. Apple offers something that people feel, right or wrong, is a cut above the average cheapbook. Why do some people shop at Walmart and others at Trader Joe's? Why do Herman Miller chairs cost twice as much as the ones from Office Depot? Why does a Rolex cost more than a Swatch? As long as people are willing to pay, some companies will continue to make more expensive products than others. Get over it.
posted by sophist at 9:08 PM on May 27, 2010

I'm still using a PowerBook from 2002. I'm typing on it right now. In eight years of daily use, it's only needed two serious repairs (a hard drive and an inverter cable) and a new power cord. It doesn't much like Flash, but mostly, neither do I.

If it were an Intel instead of a PowerPC, I'd go right on using it. As it is, I'm missing some content I really want, so it's finally time to move on. I ordered a new MacBook Pro.

I use the hell out of my computer. I'm willing to pay extra to use a computer I love.
posted by swerve at 10:36 PM on May 27, 2010 [3 favorites]

My Macbook takes a second to wake up from sleep. My PC whirs and grinds for several minutes. That alone is worth it for me.

Oh, and the hours I spent on OS updates and reinstalls on PCs. Shudder.
posted by metaseeker at 4:22 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

I came here specifically to point out that "Now that Microsoft has gotten it right with Windows 7" looks like a great example of begging the question.

I meant relative to Vista.
posted by 4ster at 4:36 AM on May 28, 2010

Thanks to everyone for the replies. I had forgotten about the unibody feature of Macs, so I wasn't factoring that in. Also, I'm highly unlikely to switch back. I just wanted to feel better (and have a clearer understanding) about committing to another Apple machine.

Again, thanks so much.
posted by 4ster at 4:41 AM on May 28, 2010

I have a tiny bit to add as a gamer. The cheapo windows lappies nearly always have the cheapest Intel integrated gfx chips there are. Macs sometimes have that and sometimes they have something that is vaguely passable (compared to desktop gfx cards), so they're better off in that department.
posted by Submiqent at 4:53 AM on May 28, 2010

My Macbook takes a second to wake up from sleep. My PC whirs and grinds for several minutes. That alone is worth it for me.

There is a difference between sleep and hibernate. Apples and oranges.
posted by gjc at 5:33 AM on May 28, 2010

Short answer: Apple has positioned themselves as the "luxury" brand. They're more expensive because they're Apple. While most PC manufacturers are selling their hardware as a cheap commodity, when you buy an Apple you're buying the Apple brand experience. This is the same reason why a pair of designer jeans can cost $80 when Target sells a no-brand pair that is essentially the same thing for $15.
posted by Vorteks at 6:32 AM on May 28, 2010

I meant relative to Vista.

That's not saying much.
posted by odinsdream at 9:40 AM on May 28, 2010

There is an adapter that will carry the audio and video signal over HDMI for any Mini Displayport MacBook, specifically this one. I use this almost every day for MLB.tv.
posted by kosmonaut at 9:58 AM on May 28, 2010

I haven't seen a single Windows laptop that is as nice as any of the models Apple puts out. You are paying a premium for that. You can't run MacOS X on a non-Apple computer (legally). You are paying a premium for that. (I use Windows 7 at work, and while it is a bit nicer, it's certainly not as nice as MacOS X.) Apple is a brand with some cachet, unlikes say HP. You are paying a premium for that.
posted by chunking express at 12:24 PM on May 28, 2010

Vorteks: They're more expensive because they're Apple.

People keep saying this, but it's just not true. It's been refuted over and over in this thread, so I'll just suggest you read it again.
posted by swerve at 2:00 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

Now that ThinkPad is controlled by Lenovo and quality has markedly decreased,

This. I bought a Thinkpad last year, having read tons of glowing reviews hear and elsewhere. I did buy the cheapest model, so there's that, but in the year (yes, just a year) that I was able to use it, the following happened:

- After two months, the power input had some sort of problem, requiring me to send the computer in to be serviced. It took over a month to get it back because they couldn't find the right part. During that month, I spent countless hours waiting on hold and getting transferred between various parts of the Lenovo customer service world, trying to figure out where the hell my computer was.

- Shortly thereafter, my hard drive crashed because I accidentally turned my computer off during an update. And update I had not approved. I know this is a Windows issue, not Lenovo, but this is not something you will have to deal with on a Mac.

- After about 10 months, one of the hinges connecting the screen to the bottom part started to crack. By the end of the first year I had the machine, the hinge was completely loose, exposing wires that had started to fray. Completely shoddy.

- At this point, the OS had become unbearably slow. Like, take 10 minutes to open an application slow. I hear this issue has been somewhat resolved with Windows 7, but I'm skeptical.

After that experience, I said "screw it" and used my tax refund to buy a MPB 13, and haven't looked back. I will probably never buy a PC again.
posted by lunasol at 6:33 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

Oh, and: in my last post, I mentioned that my Thinkpad was the cheapest model. The sticker price was around $600. The thing is, Apple doesn't really have a "cheapest laptop" in the same way that Lenovo and Dell do. The MacBook is not really equivalent. I know that's not the comparison that you're making, but I think a lot of people do make that comparison, and it makes Macs seem even more expensive than they are.
posted by lunasol at 6:36 PM on May 28, 2010

I was in the market for a MacBook Pro about a year ago, and bought an EeePC 1000HE to tide me over while I waited for Apple to update the 13" model. In the meantime, I have completely fallen in love with the EeePC, and no longer plan to get a Mac. The Eee cost $500 when I bought it, but I could replace it for $300 now. It's 10", so I can take it anywhere, but when I'm at home I plug it into a 22" Dell monitor (the monitor cost $300). It runs everything I need it to run, including Photoshop, and I've had zero problems with it. It's been a year and the battery still lasts 8 hours. I previously owned a PowerBook, but my EeePC suits my needs right now better than any computer I've ever worked with. I highly recommend the netbook / large monitor setup, it really is the best of both worlds.
posted by oulipian at 10:18 PM on May 28, 2010

Depending on what you're planning to use it for, you can save a lot of money getting a regular MacBook and using software like Google Docs for spreadsheets, etc. and that will allow you to import from/export to Microsoft file formats. The MacBook Pro, at least when purchased through the Mac site, requires that you buy a bundle of extra software that you probably won't need...getting a new or refurbished 13" Macbook will save you a lot of money.

I've been a windows-only user since 1992 and have found the Mac a joy to use, once I got used to its way of doing things. The value of usability is difficult to quantify but every Windows system I've used required that I install a bunch of anti spyware, malware, virus, etc. software, get special software to tweak it, muck around with the registry to uninstall junk programs that work their way into the system internals, etc.

If you have any inclinations towards programming, nothing beats working from the terminal and getting access to your system...Mac lets you do it and Windows DOS just doesn't cut it. One more bonus if you do gaming: the Steam client is now on Mac and they are adding new games every week.
posted by cmccormick at 6:24 AM on May 30, 2010

Here's why I bought my 2010 13" MacBook Pro:

1. Best construction, by far. Every part of the case is simply a dream to hold and use, from the aluminum unibody to the glass display to the quiet magnetic "latch". Most other notebooks (even the best reviewed ones!) feel like plasticy crap.
2. Amazing display. The brightness and contrast ratio are phenomenal.
3. The trackpad, in OSX, is a dream to use, and lets me interact with my computer in a much more fluid manner than I previously thought possible.
4. OSX itself is much better suited to mobile use than Windows 7. You don't have to fiddle around with configs and download tons of applications to make it do what you want it to, and the interface is more intuitive. (I also find it hilarious that OSX can natively open .doc files, whereas Windows can't!)
5. The battery life is exemplary: 8-10 hours doing basic work in OSX. (I carefully tested these claims, and they're true, for the most part.)
6. Nearly perfect dual-boot support. (Aside from a few problems with the trackpad, unfortunately.)
7. More than acceptable hardware. The nVidia 320M, in particular, is perfect for most of the games I play, including TF2 on reasonably high settings.
posted by archagon at 7:46 PM on June 18, 2010