If other manufacturers can afford the licensing costs on a 500€ desktop with a more powerful processor than the Mac mini, I can't see the licensing costs are going to affect the 2K+ you pay for a MacBook Pro or a MacPro, heck, for the price of the Mac mini, I'd expect a Core i3 and a Blu-Ray...

If I can get a Core i7-720QM, 8GB RAM, 500GB HD, Full HD display and Blu-Ray/DVD Writer combo, HDMI, VGA, Firewire and E-Sata Sony laptop for 1,400€, why can't Apple offer a quad core laptop? Why can't it have Blu-Ray? Why can't it have E-Sata, when the, otherwise equivalent (Core i7 dual core, DVD Writer, 8GB RAM) MacBook Pro costs over 3,000€.

I just can't see the justification of spending more than double the price to get a slower processor, no BD, no E-Sata... An aluminium case? Does the case really cost over 1.500€ to produce? If so, it is nice, but I'd rather they use a more cost effective case and concentrate on putting competitive innards in the machine.

It is a shame, I really like the MacBook Pro (especially the trackpad) and I like OS X, but I just can't justify spending twice as much for a lower specification machine, just because it runs OS X, since Vista and Windows 7, Apple just don't have the OS advantage any more. In day-to-day use, OS X doesn't bring any improvement in productivity over Windows 7 and all the apps I use are available on both...

I bought my stepdaughter an MacBook Pro 13" last year, it was expensive, but it was just about justifiable (the Core i3/i5/i7 weer still on the horizon and it could just about hold its head above water), but the 15" and 17" MBPs are just too expensive to justify the price, unless you already have thousands invested in OS X specific software...

You're tilting at windmills. Apple have always built the machines they wanted to for the reasons they choose and if you don't want them then they really don't seem to care much. People buy their products or not. They've hardly ever conformed to the logic of the PC market and, frankly, look like doing less so as times goes by.

Apple's response to the question 'Why can't I buy a Mac with <long string of letters and numbers that aren't English> when <some other company> makes one like that?" has always been "<shrug> well buy that one then." The one time they did try to conform to the vagueries of the PC world, they almost went out of business entirely.

Jon

I know, but as an Apple user, looking for a new laptop, it was incredibly frustrating. I wanted a MacBook Pro, but I just couldn't justify spending over twice as much for lesser hardware, OS X isn't worth an extra 1,500-2,000€ over Windows 7 and, luckily, I don't have a fortune invested in Mac specific software (no Adobe CS for OS X etc.).

As CC always compared Apple's prices to Sony's, it is ironic, that I went with a Sony, because it was less than half the price.

Okay, leaving aside the fortune I have invested in software, I find the relatively high initial cost of purchasing a Mac laptop is more than outweighed by the length of service I expect.

I am typing this on a 2007 MacBook Pro, bought as a factory refurb. I paid £1500-ish for it in 2007, and I'd have expected to pay the same for a PC lappy of the same spec.

It's still very capable of running the latest OS and all the software I run. I'm still on the stock 2GB RAM, the stock internal drive, and it's been lugged from pillar to post in most of the time I've owned it. Apart from some handling grime and a bit of shine of the trackpad and keys, it's as good as the day I bought it.

I fully expect it to run for at least another couple of years, perhaps more if my economic situation doesn't improve markedly soon. A five year life cycle for a working laptop is not to be sneezed at. I don't think that over the three years I have owned this Mac that it was an expensive option.

I agree with you, my MacBook is the first generation (thus is 32-bit) from 2006 and still works like a dream, I would like to think I'll get at least another two or three years out of it.

Dave will say that any other laptop will last that long, and he may mention his Toshiba which was quite old, not sure if he still has it. But the reality is, that most PC users do seem to replace their laptops after two to three years. My brother has had his laptop for around two years and is looking for a replacement, why? Because it's slow and Vista is crap, apparently...In reality he could do some upgrades and it would be a fully working laptop again, but he wants a new one...

When I bought my first mac a 17" powerbook it was £300 cheaper than the equivalent 17" windows laptop. I wanted a decent hard drive FW800 and Wifi and BT. Toshiba and HP were the only comparable makes and they were both much more than the powerbook. That was nearly 6 years ago. It still works though I just use it for PPC games now.

The two iMacs that I bought are not going to be replaced for at least 4 years so the cost overall is not that much plus I have a lot of software for macs so it is relatively cheap to upgrade now.

Back then, the prices weren't too extortionate, you could get "no-name" PCs and laptops much cheaper, but now, you can get good quality named brands for less than half the price. When I bought my iMac in 2006, it cost about 10-15% more than a desktop with a 24" monitor, now, I could buy nearly 2 24" PCs for the price of an iMac 21"... The same, as I showed, for the laptop I just bought, Sony Vaio brand, higher spec, less than half the price of a MBP 17".

Length of service? We currently have a fleet of PCs at work, the mode age is 7 years, the oldest is 15 years old and still in daily use...

The laptop I just replaced is a 2004 model, it is still running fine, but not high enough spec to run the latest software - my girlfriend still uses it, because she just needs web browsing, email and the odd Word document. My desktop PC is also 2007, will probably look at replacing it in another 2 years. The iMac 2006 and it struggles with MS Office 2008, even after a re-install, but I think it might be down to user settings, which TimeMachine brought back, I'll have another go at getting it running, when I can sit at my desk again...

My Gf's family have just started having to replace their machines, as they are slowly dying. Most of them are between 8 and 15 years old.

Developing software, I tend to replace my machines more often, every 4-6 years, as opposed to 8-10 years.


The same goes for the 2004 Acer Extensa. It still looks fine, no major scratches, the keys are a bit shiny, but otherwise it is still in very good condition. With 2GB expansion (it came with 512MB), it is still perfectly usable as an office machine, but doesn't stack up as a power user machine. I did install Vista on it, which ran perfectly fine and Windows 7 is more effcient, so that runs well as well, just not quick enough for me to develop software on.


Good for you, but my Acer laptop is 6 years old, cost a third of what a PowerBook of that era cost, so it was even more economical...

At work, the only PC to have been replaced inside of 6 years was the one in the acid store - after 4 years of sitting in sulphuric acid fumes, the contatcs on the motherboard had been eaten through!

The Toshiba is 1 year old, it is the company machine.

The Acer is 2004, the PC World Advent is 2000. The latter still runs Linux, the former had Windows 7 on it, now back to XP, due to the Beta licence expiring.

Most users I know wouldn't think of replacing a PC or laptop, as long as it is still running. They usually wait until the motherboard or hard drive fail and they lose their data! And most of them would consider a memory upgrade or something to be a waste of money...

lol at Dave.

Ahhh, was it the Advent you had problems with the wireless under Windows or Linux before? I was sure you had an older Toshiba....

Not necessarily. If you are working to a tight budget a pc is cheaper. No denying that. Though sometimes users are not so worried about performance because the apps do not require it and you do not need AV so why worry. Though buyers also include style of the machines, as a plus. A slim Macbook Air score higher than a cheap similar dell when it comes to appearance and style. Cost is not always the prime reason for buying.

I don't understand why people don't still use BBC Micros.

We currently have a fleet of BBC Micros at work, the oldest is almost 30 years old and still in daily use...

I was just pointing out Heather's mis-representation, that Macs last longer than Windows PCs. It, along with Windows slowing down over time is either a myth, or applies to a very small percentage of the PC using population. Most people, who aren't gamers or developers, that I know don't think about replacing or upgrading a PC, until it stops working. For many, that can easily be 5 years, when not 10 years.

And I was just laughing at you.

I may have hinted at that, but then most PC laptops aren't made of metal.