«

In article <>,
Roedy Green <> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:29:22 GMT, Roedy Green
> <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
> >My data is not that old, but it is Canadian. I will recheck.
>
> For example, where I live an iMac with 20-inch monitor, 2.4 GHz Dual
> core CPU, 2 gig RAM, 320 gig hard disk will set you back $1600.00 CAD
> A roughly corresponding 3 GHz Dual Core PC will set you back about
> only $975.00 CAD.

I'm familiar with the iMac brand, but who makes this "roughly
corresponding" model? Is their memory cheaper? How's their monitor
quality? Does the maker of "roughly corresponding" consist of one
company or several? Will they point fingers at each other if I have a
problem? Is this a valid comparison?

Sorry to ask so many questions, but if this pans out, I want to visit
their web site before I buy another Mac!

--
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
home dot woh dot rr dot com slash jbmatthews

Roedy Green <> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:56:05 -0400, Sherm Pendley
>>If you want to help people spell it correctly, correcting the common
>>mistake of writing it as "MAC" would be far more useful. I've been
>>reading and writing about Macs for quite a long time now, and I've
>>seen that mistake made *far* more often than the one that you're
>>trying to correct.
> That is the first I have heard it was considered an error. I will add
> that.

New to me, too, especially in the light of their own (cute) movie clips:
"Hello, I'm a PC. ... - Hello, I'm a mac. ..."

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 05:09:15 -0400, "John B. Matthews"
<> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

>I'm familiar with the iMac brand, but who makes this "roughly
>corresponding" model? Is their memory cheaper? How's their monitor
>quality? Does the maker of "roughly corresponding" consist of one
>company or several? Will they point fingers at each other if I have a
>problem? Is this a valid comparison?

Obviously you must get something for the extra bucks. My point is for
equipment with comparable specs, same amount of ram, same speed cpu,
same size disk, same size monitor, you pay a premium for the Mac.

I think you are paying quite a bit for the sexy styling. It is
certainly is not for a superior keyboard or mouse. Mac monitors are
breathtaking.

Steve Jobs invited me, and all the computer club presidents to Silicon
Valley for a conference to unveil the Lisa, the predecessor to the
Mac. There they said they could manufacture a computer they sold for
about $2500 for $200 in a totally automated factory. The reason Macs
are expensive has little to do with the cost to make them. It is
simply the price that optimises profit. That has always bothered me. I
would have liked them to go for more market penetration and force
Microsoft to clean up its act.

I was talking with one of my favourite retailer the other day and
asked what was new. They said mainly lower prices. Retailers are
squeezed by ever shrinking profit margins. The problem is it costs
just as much to sell and prep a computer even when the price drops to
half. The other news is fancy new graphics cards with astronomical
prices.

Even though Apple sells at a premium price, Apple oddly has an
advantage in a price-pinched market. They don't have to pull together
parts from many sources and hand assemble to create a machine.


--

Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com

In article <>,
Roedy Green <> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 05:09:15 -0400, "John B. Matthews"
> <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
>
> >I'm familiar with the iMac brand, but who makes this "roughly
> >corresponding" model? Is their memory cheaper? How's their monitor
> >quality? Does the maker of "roughly corresponding" consist of one
> >company or several? Will they point fingers at each other if I have a
> >problem? Is this a valid comparison?
>
> Obviously you must get something for the extra bucks. My point is for
> equipment with comparable specs, same amount of ram, same speed cpu,
> same size disk, same size monitor, you pay a premium for the Mac.

You have adduced no evidence for this conjecture. You are comparing a
particular brand to no brand in particular. The letter may sell at a
premium or a discount relative to the Mac. Without a specific, as-built
order, comparable is a relative term.

Ultimately, if you want Mac OS, you buy a Mac. If you don't want
Windows, you have to pay for it anyway. Apple tax; Microsoft tax.

> I think you are paying quite a bit for the sexy styling. It is
> certainly is not for a superior keyboard or mouse. Mac monitors are
> breathtaking.

Not everybody's happy:

<http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/26/a...acbook-6-bit-l
cd-screen-lawsuit/>

> Steve Jobs invited me, and all the computer club presidents to Silicon
> Valley for a conference to unveil the Lisa, the predecessor to the
> Mac. There they said they could manufacture a computer they sold for
> about $2500 for $200 in a totally automated factory. The reason Macs
> are expensive has little to do with the cost to make them. It is
> simply the price that optimises profit.

Aren't they are obligated to their shareholders? If they get too greedy,
won't the competition clarify the matter?

> That has always bothered me. I would have liked them to go for more
> market penetration and force Microsoft to clean up its act.

That would be a nice side-effect, but not a competitor's business goal.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist that has proven difficult to
rehabilitate.

> I was talking with one of my favourite retailer the other day and
> asked what was new. They said mainly lower prices. Retailers are
> squeezed by ever shrinking profit margins. The problem is it costs
> just as much to sell and prep a computer even when the price drops to
> half. The other news is fancy new graphics cards with astronomical
> prices.
>
> Even though Apple sells at a premium price, Apple oddly has an
> advantage in a price-pinched market. They don't have to pull together
> parts from many sources and hand assemble to create a machine.

They occasionally shrink the product line to benefit from this effect,
but it always grows back.

--
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
home dot woh dot rr dot com slash jbmatthews

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:

> Roedy Green <> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:56:05 -0400, Sherm Pendley
>>> If you want to help people spell it correctly, correcting the common
>>> mistake of writing it as "MAC" would be far more useful. I've been
>>> reading and writing about Macs for quite a long time now, and I've
>>> seen that mistake made *far* more often than the one that you're
>>> trying to correct.
>> That is the first I have heard it was considered an error. I will add
>> that.
>
> New to me, too, especially in the light of their own (cute) movie clips:
> "Hello, I'm a PC. ... - Hello, I'm a mac. ..."

I think the point is that the capitalisation is wrong: it's Mac, not MAC.
Mac is short for Macintosh, it's not an acronym for anything.

tom

--
Mpreg is short for Male Impregnation and I cannot get enough. -- D

Tom Anderson <> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:56:05 -0400, Sherm Pendley
>>>> If you want to help people spell it correctly, correcting the common
>>>> mistake of writing it as "MAC" would be far more useful.
>> New to me, too, especially in the light of their own (cute) movie clips:
>> "Hello, I'm a PC. ... - Hello, I'm a mac. ..."

> I think the point is that the capitalisation is wrong: it's Mac, not MAC.
> Mac is short for Macintosh, it's not an acronym for anything.

Ah, right.

"MAC" in capitals is actually used for the hardware address
of ethernet cards.

Roedy Green <> writes:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:15:45 -0400, Sherm Pendley
> <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
>
>>If you actually meant this guide to be useful, you could have easily
>>checked out the various brands' online stores to verify this part of
>>it - the "I don't own one, so I don't know" excuse doesn't hold water
>>this time.
> My data is not that old, but it is Canadian. I will recheck.

Come to think of it - non-US prices can vary wildly. IIRC, Macs
actually *are* horribly expensive in some European countries, because
of a VAT or some other tax on foreign imports.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Roedy Green <> writes:

> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 05:09:15 -0400, "John B. Matthews"
> <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
>
>>I'm familiar with the iMac brand, but who makes this "roughly
>>corresponding" model? Is their memory cheaper? How's their monitor
>>quality? Does the maker of "roughly corresponding" consist of one
>>company or several? Will they point fingers at each other if I have a
>>problem? Is this a valid comparison?
>
> Obviously you must get something for the extra bucks. My point is for
> equipment with comparable specs, same amount of ram, same speed cpu,
> same size disk, same size monitor, you pay a premium for the Mac.

You pay a hefty premium to have those parts come pre-assembled from
Dell or HP, too. Hence the question - against what vendor are you
comparing? A collection of parts that you have to assemble yourself is
not comparable to what you get from Apple or HP.

> I think you are paying quite a bit for the sexy styling.

I'm not - Apple could package their computers in a milk crate for all
I care. I buy them because they're *nix machines that don't require
constant tweaking to keep them running.

> Even though Apple sells at a premium price, Apple oddly has an
> advantage in a price-pinched market. They don't have to pull together
> parts from many sources and hand assemble to create a machine.

Have you looked inside a Mac recently? Except for the case & main
board, it's all standard parts from a variety of sources.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Roedy Green <> writes:

> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:29:22 GMT, Roedy Green
> <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>>My data is not that old, but it is Canadian. I will recheck.
>
> A Mac Pro with 4 cores

Look again - Mac Pros all have 2 quad-core Xeons. 8 cores.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Tom Anderson <> writes:

> I think the point is that the capitalisation is wrong: it's Mac, not
> MAC. Mac is short for Macintosh, it's not an acronym for anything.

Exactly.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net