One for Slim....

Resale value on the computer makes it a better deal is the basic argument... I might be odd in the fact that I keep my computers for a pretty long time, and by the time I would get rid of it they are definitely worth nothing. Is there a strong market for used computers? I really wouldn't be interested in buying a used or refurbished piece of equipment that I am going to rely on every day unless it comes with some sort of ridiculous warranty. The article admits you get less computer for the money as well. It all seems really pointless. I don't hate Macs, but the argument for them being cheaper doesn't seem to hold true.

That's a really well-written article and it holds true in my experience. I just sold a PowerBook, about 4 years old, that ran as well as the day I bought it, and fetched $400 despite aesthetic flaws (wear and tear) that it had accumulated over the years, and that's considered to be a pretty cheap price for that computer.

I love these stupid Mac-isms. They crack me up every time. This article doesn't make any sense. Why would you trade in your computer every couple of years instead of maintaining it? Why not just lease or rent it at that point. Let me illustrate: Mac Mini 1.83GHz /80GB/512MB ram - original price $799 w/ 2 years of use, you sell it for $500. You then buy the newest model which is a 2.0ghz, 120GB/1GB ram Mac Mini for $799. Total = $1098 OR The HP (which is admittedly fugly) 1.86GHz/250GB/2GB ram - $699 2 years later, you upgrade it. Core 2 Duo Conroe 2.4Ghz processor - $229. (new egg) GeForce 8600GT 256mb GDDR3- $108 (new egg) Total price $1036 So... now whats cheaper? Not only is the PC faster, has more RAM, more storage, but you now have a video card, you don't have to re-load or transfer all your software/music/etc. And the upgrades take less time than you would be standing in line at the Mac store.

The windows based laptop I bought last year is going to be the last one I buy before I switch to Mac. That'll be in 2-3 years though

What "most people" do isn't important and is something I've never been overly concerned with.

That being said, I think that a large number of PC owners (maybe even the majority) have done some sort of upgrading to their computers (or had it done for them). Whether its as simple as adding more RAM, or buying a new HDD...

This sounds like a good poll.

I don't know anyone who buys a new computer every two years. And I just very clearly demonstrated that a Mac DOESN'T better fit their needs. Unless their needs are to spend more money and time than neccesary, to avoid less than ten minutes worth of upgrading.

While I'm generally pro-Apple based on my experiences with the products and the exceedingly positive response you get from most people when you ask them about their Mac, some of what you rail on against about is valid criticism. This is where your anti-Mac arguments break down for me: The majority of PC owners aren't interested in spending the time in learning how to upgrade their computer to save money any more than their interested in learning how to change their oil or tires to save money. Paying somebody else to do it reduces most if not all of the savings. I can't see how you don't consider this in assessing the general merit of a computer, which is what you implicitly do over and over in your anti-Apple rants. And that's not even counting laptops, which hardly anyone upgrades (correct me if I'm wrong but upgrading the motherboard/CPU is nigh-impossible) beyond adding RAM. I would understand if you said, "Apple desktops are rip-offs for mebecause you can't upgrade them relatively easily". I would agree, I upgraded the same PC for almost 10 years for the same reasons you espouse. But the lack of easy upgrade options isn't even a remote factor for the vast majority of PC buyers, which is who makes Apple makes their product for. If you think it is, I would say you're vastly overestimating the average user's understanding of or even interest in PC hardware. Other features (the operating system for one) are far more important factors. It's like criticizing Porsche for making an engine that's difficult to work on for the non-professional mechanic. It doesn't even matter, because the amount of people that would want to work on their Porsche themselves, much less any automobile, is such a remotely small portion of the buying demographic that it's not worth it for Porsche (or Ferrari, or BMW, or whoever) to go out of the way to even consider the issue. The fact that it would save them time and money to learn how to upgrade a PC, much like something could build a car that performs similarly to a high-end sports car for a lot less with an investment of time, doesn't matter. People still don't, and the manufacturers build their cars accordingly.

I think for most consumers they like getting something entirely new and the Mac, despite its resale value (most people IME pass their old computers down to their kids or something), fulfills that need in this disposable culture.

What this exercise doesn't take into account is the time cost of getting things done on a Mac vs. a PC. Some things can't be done on one or the other, and if you're not very good with computers you may spend a lot of time frustrated by spyware or whatever. There are so many intangibles that it's impossible to do a real analysis for some mystical "average" user.

I was thinking the other day though, about how Macs are like console video game systems. Everything you buy for the Mac is going to pretty much work (to whatever degree the Mac itself works) because they maintain tight control over the possible permutations of hardware that someone should be able to be using. You pay a premium for that control and some people consider that worth it because it means most of the stuff works more than they think it would on a PC.

Personally, I use a PC because I am very good with them and need to have them for the business I do (which is working on PCs, so, duh), and I resent the control that Apple exercises over their users, and to some degree, the lack of freedom I have in choosing what I would get from them. Since there's no point in my owning both, I've never considered it seriously.

OTOH I can see why someone who doesn't know or want to know about computers would prefer a Mac, and that's fine for them.

I think both sides have their elitists who don't understand the other group's mentality. On the Mac side we have hipsters who think design (slash marketing) triumphs over all, and on the PC side we have geeks who think versatility and freedom (slash weeding out the people who don't know how to use computers) wins out. Wait, maybe I was talking about Linux freaks just there. Anyway, as always, this is a pointless debate so I will now stop.

I would use linux exclusively except for the fact that there is no MS Office or Photoshop on it. Open Office and Gimp are fine in a pinch, but they just don't compare in the end.

I don't care about gaming either, but I love using gnome for programming.

When will Windoze finally figure out to bring back the command line?

Huh? I happen to know as many people that change their own oil as not. Paying someone to upgrade your computer costs the same as buying a new computer? Where do you shop? I generally never discuss laptops. I've never needed one, the only one I've ever owned I bought for $250, sold it for $250, and barely ever used. Buying a high end laptop of any kind generally seems like a waste of money to me. What is wrong with criticizing anyone for taking away your choices? If there were only two cars, Car A: you could easily work on yourself, or take in to the shop as you saw fit, and car B: which you could only take in for maintenance at 2x the cost... why would I be "wrong" in saying that option A is better? It gives you more choices. So... whats your point? If I were to point out that you could build a car better than a Porsche in ten minutes, for less money, and you gave me this much grief about it, everyone who was listening to this conversation would likely think you an idiot. I don't understand why you people love to defend a company who takes away your choices, charges you extra for it, and expects you to like it. For the record, I've never stated or alluded to any particular brand of computer being better than Apple.

The posts you've made criticizing Apple computers' hardware, OS, pricing, etc. Come on, you knew that. I would wager a lot of money that your sample is not representative of the average car owner by a long shot, and that you know it. Adding labor to the cost mitigates the savings of upgrading vs. buying new, not counting the fact that buying new often comes with other perks (tech support, updated design, new software, new peripherals, etc.). I disagree that it's a waste of money, but fair enough. Nothing, as long as you don't generalize it to computer buyers in general. You (and I) have the knowledge and inclination to upgrade ourselves, the majority of consumers do not. Apple doesn't build desktops for that kind of consumer. I don't understand the point in being so critical of product that are clearly not intended for your use. You're not "wrong" in that having more choices is better for some consumers, but for most, Apple's target consumer, it just doesn't fucking matter in the least. Not better, performs similarly in terms of standard quantifiable performance. There are still a lot of differences, much like there are between a self-built Vista PC and an Apple desktop. In addition, ten minutes (assuming you intended it as an example of the time it take to replace a CPU or other component while you were taking my analogy out of context) doesn't take into account the time it takes to accumulate the knowledge to do so, or which to purchase, or at what price point to upgrade to, etc. You appear to be taking these things for granted, most people have no concept of them, or a desire to understand such things. It may all seem so simple to you, but most people either A) value their time enough to spend money on buying new rather than learning enough to comfortably upgrade themselves or B) don't realize it's even an option. It's not realistic for Apple to educate B, and A knows what they're getting into. My mother is generally computer savvy for a woman her age, we've had a computer in our house for over 15 years that she uses about 8 hours a day for business and pleasure. If I told her she could upgrade her computer for cheaper than buying a new one when it came time, but I wasn't going to help her with it (most people do not have that resource) and she would have to learn how to do it herself from scratch there is no way she would go to the trouble. She would probably make more in the hours it took to figure it out than she would save in the upgrade, not counting the inconvenience. Again, the vast majority of people don't care about the choices. Apple isn't taking away choices, charging you extra, and expecting you to like it. It's building computers for the majority of users, who don't give a shit about the choices you think are so important. Dell and HP have used proprietary components regularly, and hardly anyone notices, because the people who buy them don't have any inclination to upgrade them. I don't understand why you're criticizing Apple for building computers for the average user when they're obviously pretty successful at it. Why not? Clearly you must have a better alternative for the average person who needs to surf the internet, email, and use Word than "build it yourself, it's easy!".

i hope for your sake that this sort of myopic vision doesn't extend to all areas of your life.

Most people don't sell their used PCs, or macs for that matter, so from what i can tell from this thread, the whole article is pointless. I usually give my older PCs to family members and everyone else i know seems to follow a similar pattern. I've personally given 1 to my sister and 1 to my mother. I still have 3 (2 fast ones + an old athlon 1.86ghz) + a laptop. I can't say i know anyone that has actually sold a used computer.

I read one paragraph in the middle of that article as i was scrolling down the page and all i see are insecure mac users.