Apple Tax Investigated - Part IV: Other Considerations and Conclusion
This is the final part of a multi-section article on the reality of the Apple Tax by comparing the 24" iMac (early 2009) to several other options. Parts I, II and III are already posted and should be read prior to this segment.
Other Thoughts:
Apple computers are not casual-performance/gaming machines. Let the Apple fanatics chime in with “What about the Mac Pro?” and “What do you mean it can’t run games? OS X has Boot Camp.” For the record, the Nehalem Mac Pros using processors of the same architecture as the coveted Core i7 are still not gaming machines. Even their most advanced graphics solution is a single 512MB Radeon HD 4870, a $200 upgrade over the $2499 base price, and remains outclassed by three of the five custom builds I did in this article. Sure for an extra $1000 you can get a two CPU configuration, but that just guarantees the GPU will be the performance bottleneck. For that kind of cash, investing in a premium cooling option and a Core i7 can close most any advantage the Pro has and for a fraction of the cost. Throw in the ability to use a wide variety of video cards (including workstation powerhouses) as well as SLI and CrossFire (both are multiple video card configurations), the Mac Pro loses much of its appeal. Despite limited success of Intel’s Skulltrail platform, a motherboard that allowed two Core 2 Extreme processors running in parallel, renewed interest suggests that a Core i7 variant may yet see the light of day for those who absolutely have to have two CPUs. And in that case, it is all but assured that the platform will outperform the Mac Pro by a considerable margin.
But what about Boot Camp? Can you really run Windows games on a Mac? Well, yeah. Boot Camp allows you to install Windows and run Windows-native applications. You will need to purchase a copy of Windows, so add that onto the cost of a "gaming Mac". Games have become very advanced over the last several years. So much so that it requires serious hardware to run them at full settings. Remember that the Mac from this review has 1920x1200 as a native resolution; something as pathetic as a 9400M, the default graphics card, will struggle to run the games of today at anything beyond the lowest quality settings (maybe up to medium if the resolution is lowered). Hell, even the 512MB Radeon HD 4870 will struggle with many; at higher resolutions, 512MB of video memory isn’t enough for the huge textures. But that is the best available for Macs. If you want to game, you’ll need to spend well above the $1500 24" iMac and even then you’ll still be lagging far behind even the PC counterparts listed above.
So why would anyone get a Mac at all? They still command a premium at retail and I have seen for myself that I can get a better machine for less money. How do these things sell? One of the biggest reasons for Apple’s success is a lot of people are stupid and are willing to spend gobs of money on inferior products to be trendy. A large number of people are blind to the compromises they have to make to get that Apple logo on their devices. Others have simply succumbed to the advertising blitz of Apple that grossly overestimates the issues Windows Vista has had since its release and grossly underestimates the general public’s opinion of it. Vista did have a lot of problems when it was first released, most notably the “Vista-Capable” fiasco (more a result of OEMs than Microsoft) and poor support from hardware manufacturers in getting driver support for the new operating system. Especially with the release of SP1 and the growing support for the 64-bit variant, Vista has become a true performer. And it should be worth noting that there are some fairly comprehensive anti-virus programs available for free, and that Macs are not immune to viruses and exploits as Apple would have you believe (they are less common and generally more difficult to implement).
A more plausible and more respectable reason for getting a Mac is actually aligned with Mac commercials; just not any of the recent ones. The first “I’m a Mac. And I’m a PC” ads were focused on demonstrating the two platforms complementing each other. The PC would handle heavy lifting and more business-oriented activity while the Mac was there for relaxing or doing something creative with photos or videos. Macs may be pretty restrictive in what they allow you to do, but they are user-friendly and make ordinarily complex tasks (fancy slideshow presentations, web site layout and construction, etc) accessible to casual users. To some, that is worth shelling out a little more cash.
The last reason I could think of is just to have something different. Windows users have, since the release of Windows 95 more than a decade ago, been fed mostly the same computing experience with incremental upgrades. Alternative operating systems can be refreshing and add variety to their home computing. Both Linux and OS X satisfy that demand, though many will gravitate towards the latter as it is less imposing and has lower requirements of technical proficiency. With ever-growing user communities, however, Linux is fast becoming user-friendly and may soon provide the much-needed accessibility to break into the mainstream.
Conclusion:
The goal of this article was to see if the so-called Apple Tax exists. It does and it can be pretty steep. Whether or not you are willing to compromise a little on performance, build a computer yourself or buy one from a store or online, the PC remains the cheaper option. If you do decide that you'd rather spend the money for a 24" iMac, we've looked at numerous options that provide far greater performance.
If you are hoping to play games, PC is the only legitimate option. It's support for a wide range of graphics solutions will meet the needs of nearly any budget and allow for any number of upgrades in the future. In fact, PCs are likely to have a longer useful life if for no other reason than you can replace outdated parts with new ones usually without having to replace other major components. Those wanting to do large amounts of media encoding will have an easier time with a quad-core machine; such equipped PCs can be found for less than half the price of the Mac Pro, the only Mac with in the family with the same.
For casual use, you don't need the performance advantages of PC hardware, but the $1500 price tag of the iMac is a little much. Scaling back to a 20" iMac (smaller hard drive, half the memory, and lower quality screen than the 24" model) can save $300 and further compromise (no monitor, keyboard or mouse, only 1GB of memory, 120GB hard drive, and a slower processor) can bring the price down to $600, still more than the bargain PCs at your local consumer electronics store. For such prospective users, a Mac is still not out of the question, but they would certainly be wise to learn more about the platform and its software to see if it provides benefit enough to tip the scales in the Mac's favor. Macs do have a lot to offer, but it may be at a higher price than you are willing to pay.
This article was written on a Mac
Other Thoughts:
Apple computers are not casual-performance/gaming machines. Let the Apple fanatics chime in with “What about the Mac Pro?” and “What do you mean it can’t run games? OS X has Boot Camp.” For the record, the Nehalem Mac Pros using processors of the same architecture as the coveted Core i7 are still not gaming machines. Even their most advanced graphics solution is a single 512MB Radeon HD 4870, a $200 upgrade over the $2499 base price, and remains outclassed by three of the five custom builds I did in this article. Sure for an extra $1000 you can get a two CPU configuration, but that just guarantees the GPU will be the performance bottleneck. For that kind of cash, investing in a premium cooling option and a Core i7 can close most any advantage the Pro has and for a fraction of the cost. Throw in the ability to use a wide variety of video cards (including workstation powerhouses) as well as SLI and CrossFire (both are multiple video card configurations), the Mac Pro loses much of its appeal. Despite limited success of Intel’s Skulltrail platform, a motherboard that allowed two Core 2 Extreme processors running in parallel, renewed interest suggests that a Core i7 variant may yet see the light of day for those who absolutely have to have two CPUs. And in that case, it is all but assured that the platform will outperform the Mac Pro by a considerable margin.
But what about Boot Camp? Can you really run Windows games on a Mac? Well, yeah. Boot Camp allows you to install Windows and run Windows-native applications. You will need to purchase a copy of Windows, so add that onto the cost of a "gaming Mac". Games have become very advanced over the last several years. So much so that it requires serious hardware to run them at full settings. Remember that the Mac from this review has 1920x1200 as a native resolution; something as pathetic as a 9400M, the default graphics card, will struggle to run the games of today at anything beyond the lowest quality settings (maybe up to medium if the resolution is lowered). Hell, even the 512MB Radeon HD 4870 will struggle with many; at higher resolutions, 512MB of video memory isn’t enough for the huge textures. But that is the best available for Macs. If you want to game, you’ll need to spend well above the $1500 24" iMac and even then you’ll still be lagging far behind even the PC counterparts listed above.
So why would anyone get a Mac at all? They still command a premium at retail and I have seen for myself that I can get a better machine for less money. How do these things sell? One of the biggest reasons for Apple’s success is a lot of people are stupid and are willing to spend gobs of money on inferior products to be trendy. A large number of people are blind to the compromises they have to make to get that Apple logo on their devices. Others have simply succumbed to the advertising blitz of Apple that grossly overestimates the issues Windows Vista has had since its release and grossly underestimates the general public’s opinion of it. Vista did have a lot of problems when it was first released, most notably the “Vista-Capable” fiasco (more a result of OEMs than Microsoft) and poor support from hardware manufacturers in getting driver support for the new operating system. Especially with the release of SP1 and the growing support for the 64-bit variant, Vista has become a true performer. And it should be worth noting that there are some fairly comprehensive anti-virus programs available for free, and that Macs are not immune to viruses and exploits as Apple would have you believe (they are less common and generally more difficult to implement).
A more plausible and more respectable reason for getting a Mac is actually aligned with Mac commercials; just not any of the recent ones. The first “I’m a Mac. And I’m a PC” ads were focused on demonstrating the two platforms complementing each other. The PC would handle heavy lifting and more business-oriented activity while the Mac was there for relaxing or doing something creative with photos or videos. Macs may be pretty restrictive in what they allow you to do, but they are user-friendly and make ordinarily complex tasks (fancy slideshow presentations, web site layout and construction, etc) accessible to casual users. To some, that is worth shelling out a little more cash.
The last reason I could think of is just to have something different. Windows users have, since the release of Windows 95 more than a decade ago, been fed mostly the same computing experience with incremental upgrades. Alternative operating systems can be refreshing and add variety to their home computing. Both Linux and OS X satisfy that demand, though many will gravitate towards the latter as it is less imposing and has lower requirements of technical proficiency. With ever-growing user communities, however, Linux is fast becoming user-friendly and may soon provide the much-needed accessibility to break into the mainstream.
Conclusion:
The goal of this article was to see if the so-called Apple Tax exists. It does and it can be pretty steep. Whether or not you are willing to compromise a little on performance, build a computer yourself or buy one from a store or online, the PC remains the cheaper option. If you do decide that you'd rather spend the money for a 24" iMac, we've looked at numerous options that provide far greater performance.
If you are hoping to play games, PC is the only legitimate option. It's support for a wide range of graphics solutions will meet the needs of nearly any budget and allow for any number of upgrades in the future. In fact, PCs are likely to have a longer useful life if for no other reason than you can replace outdated parts with new ones usually without having to replace other major components. Those wanting to do large amounts of media encoding will have an easier time with a quad-core machine; such equipped PCs can be found for less than half the price of the Mac Pro, the only Mac with in the family with the same.
For casual use, you don't need the performance advantages of PC hardware, but the $1500 price tag of the iMac is a little much. Scaling back to a 20" iMac (smaller hard drive, half the memory, and lower quality screen than the 24" model) can save $300 and further compromise (no monitor, keyboard or mouse, only 1GB of memory, 120GB hard drive, and a slower processor) can bring the price down to $600, still more than the bargain PCs at your local consumer electronics store. For such prospective users, a Mac is still not out of the question, but they would certainly be wise to learn more about the platform and its software to see if it provides benefit enough to tip the scales in the Mac's favor. Macs do have a lot to offer, but it may be at a higher price than you are willing to pay.
This article was written on a Mac