Hackers Aim Ruse at Apple Computer Users

[phide]

One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem"...Total: 2499$ Now let's build a PC with the following items: Total: 1100$~ YMMV

When you take a Mac Pro, with workstation-class Xeon processors and ECC memory, and compare it to a self-built PC with standard 'consumer-grade' processors and non-error correcting memory, the cost difference ends up being substantial because the difference between component costs is substantial.

Xeons are expensive. ECC memory is expensive. Well-made aluminum cases are expensive. It's not as if the money disappears into thin air — the component costs are just significantly higher. The Mac Pro actually compares pretty favorably to workstations manufactured by Dell, HP and others.

 

[Nasty_Savage]

The difference between Windows and MAC on laptops is that MAC develops their hardware overseas and builds it. They do not have another manufacturer put the OS on their own hardware and sell it. The analogy works only if the process is the same.

Now, the reason why most PCs make mention on MACs costing tons more is because if you build your own machine - it is quite a bit more for a MAC. If I want to build a Windows machine that can rival Apple's MacPro machine (starting at 2499$) which contains at default:

One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem”
3GB (3x1GB) Memory
No Raid Card
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
18X DVD/CD Drive
27 inch apple display
No additional software.

Total: 2499$

Now let's build a PC with the following items:

474$ Intel Core i7-960 3.2GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Desktop Processor GIGABYTE GA-X58A-UD3R ATX Intel Motherboard
50-100$ Case, you can pick your flavor to your style from hundreds of Manuf.
118$ ATI 5770 1GB
79$ 3GB (3x1GB) Kingston HyperX T1
59$ Seagate Barracuda ST31000524AS 1TB
250$ 27" Monitor starting at around 250$
99$ Windows 7

Total: 1100$~ YMMV

Of course, the parts are all Apple Certified and such, so the comparison isn't 100%. But...for almost half the cost I can build a Windows Machine.

Core i7 is not equal to Xeon. Comparing workstation class products with your game rig is kinda silly.

 

[mope54]

If I want to build a Windows machine that can rival Apple's MacPro machine (starting at 2499$) which contains at default:

One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem”
3GB (3x1GB) Memory
No Raid Card
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
18X DVD/CD Drive
27 inch apple display
No additional software.

Total: 2499$

Now let's build a PC with the following items:

474$ Intel Core i7-960 3.2GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Desktop Processor GIGABYTE GA-X58A-UD3R ATX Intel Motherboard
50-100$ Case, you can pick your flavor to your style from hundreds of Manuf.
118$ ATI 5770 1GB
79$ 3GB (3x1GB) Kingston HyperX T1
59$ Seagate Barracuda ST31000524AS 1TB
250$ 27" Monitor starting at around 250$
99$ Windows 7

Total: 1100$~ YMMV

Of course, the parts are all Apple Certified and such, so the comparison isn't 100%. But...for almost half the cost I can build a Windows Machine.

Of course you forgot the 27 inch apple display but whatever

 

[Staples]

Of course you forgot the 27 inch apple display but whatever

He added a 27" display but a cheap one.

You know, Macbook Pros are almost the only laptop you can get a decent display on nowadays. 95% or more laptops have very cheap TN displays (we are talking cheap, not even good TN displays) where as Macbook Pros ALL have IPS displays that are way better than any TN displays.

Anywho, most people do not realize it that Apple used to be pretty conservative, they used to be a late adopter of new technology but since the market is so focused on making this cheaper, it is becoming more and more true that Apple hardware is the only place to get high end computer hardware for the sole reason that Apple is not obsessed with the idea of making things as cheap as possible by using the cheapest technology out there.

 

[rat]

He added a 27" display but a cheap one.

You know, Macbook Pros are almost the only laptop you can get a decent display on nowadays. 95% or more laptops have very cheap TN displays (we are talking cheap, not even good TN displays) where as Macbook Pros ALL have IPS displays that are way better than any TN displays.

Bzzzt, nope. They don't. They're also TN.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review...-GHz-dual-core-glare-type-screen.51631.0.html

Apple dumping TN panels into their books is pretty much why they went Glossy... against the cries of nearly every user who all preferred matte.

Anywho, most people do not realize it that Apple used to be pretty conservative, they used to be a late adopter of new technology but since the market is so focused on making this cheaper, it is becoming more and more true that Apple hardware is the only place to get high end computer hardware for the sole reason that Apple is not obsessed with the idea of making things as cheap as possible by using the cheapest technology out there.

Oh yeah, because developing proprietary standards absolutely smacks of conservatism. When that plan fails and they end up having to *gasp* use standards compliant tech... your argument sounds even more retarded because you're talking "high end" hardware with components that are indistinguishable on the cheap and it's all made by the same company that makes all of the "low end" stuff out there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn

Apple is a generic computer company that sells their stuff as a premium brand . Full stop. They have battery failures and recalls just like Sony, HP and others have. They use the same parts, the same manufacturers, have the same error/failure rates, have the same issues and ... surprise ... have all but the same price in the end.

Apple *is* obsessed with making things as cheap as possible. Why? Because selling the same shit for premium markup is how they make their money. Otherwise... they wouldn't be using the same company that also builds HPs, Dells and Nokia phones.

 

[Staples]

I am surprised to actually see that MBP use TN screens but I can tell you, they still have better viewing angles than any other laptop at Best Buy. Granted most the their PC laptops are under $1000 but the real lackluster of screens on laptops really bugs me. My gf has a Macbook Pro and I have a decent Sony. Her screen is a hellava lot better than this POS I have in front of me.

 

[mope54]

don't chase that red herring, Staples.

techrat is talking out his ass once again...unless of course timtheenchantor was talking about a 27" macbook! reasonable interpretation of his post was comparison of a desktop to an iMac with a 27" IPS monitor.

 

[phide]

I am surprised to actually see that MBP use TN screens but I can tell you, they still have better viewing angles than any other laptop at Best Buy. My gf has a Macbook Pro and I have a decent Sony. Her screen is a hellava lot better than this POS I have in front of me.

From: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/10

 

[rat]

don't chase that red herring, Staples.

techrat is talking out his ass once again...unless of course timtheenchantor was talking about a 27" macbook! reasonable interpretation of his post was comparison of a desktop to an iMac with a 27" IPS monitor.

Because not providing a single cite for your claims certainly solidifies your argument when your reading comprehension can be called into question. I responded to a guy who claimed IPS panels were used in MacBook Pros... and that's what I debunked. And I quote: "Macbook Pros ALL have IPS displays that are way better than any TN displays."

Troll.

From: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/10

From that very same article you posted, Phide...

"It's a TN and likewise still has the same mediocre vertical viewing angles as virtually every TN."

Hotlinking that image and replying with that link *DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, DEBUNK WHAT I POINTED OUT.*

Now let's see contrast figures from before Apple made them all GLOSSY.

God, you MacTards are getting fucking desperate. You're even trying to argue against documented facts.

 

[phide]

Hotlinking that image and replying with that link *DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, DEBUNK WHAT I POINTED OUT.*

I wasn't attempting to. I suggest you calm yourself down.

 

[mope54]

Because not providing a single cite for your claims certainly solidifies your argument when your reading comprehension can be called into question. I responded to a guy who claimed IPS panels were used in MacBook Pros... and that's what I debunked. And I quote: "Macbook Pros ALL have IPS displays that are way better than any TN displays."

Troll.

God, you MacTards are getting fucking desperate. You're even trying to argue against documented facts.

How is my reading comprehension being called into question when Staples was responding to someone quoting a 27" iMac screen and pointing out that Apple uses IPS screens. He made the mistake of talking about using IPS screens in Macbooks, but every reasonable person reading this knows that no is talking about 27" laptops.

Troll, Tard? Nah, dude, I'm a PC user actually I just can't stand your fucking ignorance and being a total douchebag.

 

[rat]

What's interesting is that the panel mentioned in the article are also used in HPs, Lenovo Thinkpads, Toshibas and Samsung's own models.

http://www.aliexpress.com/product-f...MT07-15-4-WXGA-LAPTOP-SCREEN-wholesalers.html

There's also, as it says in the article, color profiling. "Apple also seems to ship an ICC profile for each specific panel type with LUT curves already, which actually put the display close to where it should be."

If this was done for each of the models below it... then how would they stack up to the ones used in the MacBooks? Probably a LOT closer than the graph would show.

Something should be considered off when an Acer (probably agreed upon to be the most cheap of all name brands out there) ranks better than a Dell Studio and a couple of ASUS models.