How does Apple charge these prices?

[Ethan3.14159]

2, are we discussing apple plain boring white? I can walk into a best buy and find laptops in red, blue, green, grey, black, silver, two tone in any of those and polished Aluminum. Not to mention you bring up apple screen? Well I could get a PC with true 1080p HD screen and bluray (Apple does not offer on any model) and have a much higher resolution quality.

Higher resolution =/= higher quality screen.

Most laptop manufacturers put the cheapest screen they can in their mainstream models. Asus and Acer are the bigger culprits of this. Just because they have a high resolution doesn't mean the screen is better. Accurate color reproduction, good contrast, white balance, response time, and viewing angle are more important factors, in my opinion.

 

[DMGrier]

This thread was not started to complain about Apples high prices on there laptop's, it was started on how they rip off there consumers due to a aging hardware that we all know that Apple's cost to build that laptop is no where near as high as it was a year or more ago when they released that version of Macbook and how Apple does not adjust there prices accordingly or put better hardware in there to keep that price understandable.

When you do your PC shopping you just have to be smart, there could be a HP that has the same features as a Macbook but if it is $699 then you should know it is running some crappy hardware. I was looking at a Macbook last year so what did I do, I looked at a PC that was in the same exact bracket and non gaming type cause that just means corners where cut to pay for that gpu when you are only shopping for a 1k laptop. I will go as far as to argue that my laptop is just as good quality as a Macbook, more powerful hardware, HD screen, slot load disc drive, extremely thin/lite weight and back light keyboard and a plastic shell, free 2 year warranty through Dell. Which I prefer a plastic shell cause that Metal shell will not protect it from falling and further more if you know anything about heating and cooling plastic cools much faster then metal, but what would I know on that subject only being a gas turbine system mechanic.

With PC you literally get what you pay for, a computer for $499 will last and run like... well......... $499.

 

[ian]

Thats kinda misleading, the macbooks/pro don't use IPS screens.

he was probably referring to the imac's. He didn't exactly say macbook pro.

 

[tlarkin]

Thats kinda misleading, the macbooks/pro don't use IPS screens.

Only iMacs and iPads use IPS screens, but I was using it to make a point. Also, very very few laptops use as high quality screen as Apple does on their laptops. They use a screen with full sRGB spectrum coverage, and a high wide view TN screen. Any PC laptop that has the same quality screen (and it is only a few) start at higher prices than the Macbook Pro 13". This is why the native resolution on a 15" is 1440 x 900. Not many laptops actually support those resolutions native. So, regardless of not all of them having IPS screens, they still use higher quality more expensive screens than almost all PC laptops do.

In the end no OS is perfect..Windows is extremely customizable but less secure, Linux is secure but not user friendly, and OSX is secure and user friendly but seriously lacks customization.

What exactly do you want to customize in OS X? You always say you hate certain things, like pixel size or whatever it was, and I just see that as being something you dislike. I can really hardly seeing the average user wanting to have more customizations.

But this isn't about software..you can run any os on any computer..it's all just x64 processors and ddr3 ram and nvidia graphics chips etc. Hackintoshes are everywhere (i'm also guilty of it despite owning 3 macs), so that's not an argument either.

It is about quality of use. My Macs run faster, faster than my higher spec'd PC. This is because my higher spec custom built PC runs Windows. It has longer boot times, longer load times, and when I quit a rather heavy game like Starcraft II, my PC takes forever to free up that RAM it was using. When I quit on my Mac the memory is released almost instantly it seems in comparison. My Macbook Pro is just a core 2 duo with 4 gigs of RAM and an ATI x1900 (I think I could be wrong) and my PC is easily double the specs. Then again the Mac version of SCII is written in Open GL, where the PC version is written in DirectX, which probably makes a huge difference.

Hardware wise, Apple does add some niceties, like SMS, backlit keyboard, aluminum unibody, long battery life, but most of this can be found in other manufacturers too. The part that strays me personally away is crap like only putting in a mini-dvi port, making retarded adapter dongle things necessary; excessive heat buildup on some of the macbook pros (my personal experience was from the generation with the 8600GT gpu); generally a lack of usb slots; non user replaceable batteries now; just stupid things that bug the hell outta mean. All for the means of looking 'modern' and 'minimalist' or whatever bland monotonous look they're going for.

I have had this discussion so many times I think I am just going to stop having it. You are correct, Apple does add in the bells and whistles. However, you try to match the Mac with a PC with equivalent features and benefits, the PC will cost the same, or sometimes more. The only downside is there is no option to take those features out for a cheaper Mac.

The other part that stray me away is the cost. Yes, technically it's worth it with the extras you get, but I really don't wanna pay $1000 for a base model laptop. If i'm paying that much it better damn well have an up to date processor, more ram, better than an ok-ish gpu, at LEAST 500gb hard drive..2 usb ports??? Still???? Damn, and definitely more than 2 usb ports...

Like I said, personal preference..but it ain't mine.

Well, find me a PC laptop, that has a 13" screen that supports 1280 x 800 native and is under $1,000. There is somewhat of a trade off here. If you want more USB ports, and more RAM and a better GPU you may find that in a laptop that has a crappier screen. The overall cost of ownership on a Mac is cheaper than a PC though. Macs have a resell value, and PCs do not. Every time I buy a new mac, I sell my old one for several hundred dollars, sometimes more, and apply it towards my new Mac. A couple years ago I sold my 5 year old dual G4 MDD desktop, for $700. I don't think you can ever sell a 5 year old PC for $700. I know you get it, and I am not picking on you, but after all of our debates you are one of the more level headed people here

This thread was not started to complain about Apples high prices on there laptop's, it was started on how they rip off there consumers due to a aging hardware that we all know that Apple's cost to build that laptop is no where near as high as it was a year or more ago when they released that version of Macbook and how Apple does not adjust there prices accordingly or put better hardware in there to keep that price understandable.

When you do your PC shopping you just have to be smart, there could be a HP that has the same features as a Macbook but if it is $699 then you should know it is running some crappy hardware. I was looking at a Macbook last year so what did I do, I looked at a PC that was in the same exact bracket and non gaming type cause that just means corners where cut to pay for that gpu when you are only shopping for a 1k laptop. I will go as far as to argue that my laptop is just as good quality as a Macbook, more powerful hardware, HD screen, slot load disc drive, extremely thin/lite weight and back light keyboard and a plastic shell, free 2 year warranty through Dell. Which I prefer a plastic shell cause that Metal shell will not protect it from falling and further more if you know anything about heating and cooling plastic cools much faster then metal, but what would I know on that subject only being a gas turbine system mechanic.

With PC you literally get what you pay for, a computer for $499 will last and run like... well......... $499.

You cannot really get a PC that is spec for spec just like a Mac and cheaper. The problem is, people look at three things. CPU, RAM, and GPU. There are many more components that go into a computer.

It sounds to me like you already made up your mind and didn't really fully research it. Battery life, ABGN wireless, Blue Tooth, SMS, back lit keyboard, high quality high resolution screen, multi touch track pad, built in web cam, unibody (this makes it chip way less), and of course weight. These are all features in a laptop that are important to many users.

I have owned, serviced, repaired, and supported the following laptops over the last decade: Sony, Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, Acer, Asus, Lenovo, IBM, Apple, Toshiba, and so forth. Out of every laptop I have owned, and I have owned many over the years, and my work buys me new ones from time to time, and I also have had to support them as my job, the Apple laptops are of the highest quality. Just using all of those over the years the Apples always felt higher quality.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked my HP business class laptop and I really liked my Asus laptop, and if I wanted a laptop to just run Linux on and do some work or control maybe other PCs/Macs in my house, I would probably buy a cheaper PC from HP (business class only) or Asus. There is nothing wrong with buying PC laptops. However, if you really want to compare a Mac to a PC you need to do so with actually comparing each feature to feature and each spec to spec. Otherwise it is not really a comparison.

The thing is, my Macbook Pro has 4gigs of RAM in it. I run virtual machines of Linux and Windows in it, so I don't need to buy a separate laptop. Though I am considering some sort of netbook for basically a very thin and light e-Reader with web browsing abilities and remote connections (ssh, sftp, etc).

 

[PohTayToez]

Well, find me a PC laptop, that has a 13" screen that supports 1280 x 800 native and is under $1,000.

Here are about 30 of them.

 

[tlarkin]

Here are about 30 of them.

OK, but how many of those meet the other specs? I should have been more clear I suppose.

The ones that are similar spec are similar in price though. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[AE7]

To hardware-centric people, who know nothing about software, a Mac is going to be hated. Remember folks, you're not buying just hardware, you've got OS X, iLife, and other nice things that Apple builds into a fully compliant POSIX OS.

I had a Mac, buying another soon, but my reasoning was being able to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, InDesign, etc., while having a decent terminal. Yes, I use GIMP for some things, but sometimes GIMP takes twenty minutes to do something that would take five minutes in Photoshop. Try putting something together that's RESTful- you'll need cURL in your terminal, which is possible with CygWin or MinGW, but that's an annoyance.

 

[Dystopia]

Honestly, I think Macs are "luxury" computers. Fancy case, things like back-lit keyboards, ect. What makes a BMW so much better than a Ford? The way it is built, the quality, comfort, ect. Extra features, things like that.

It's similar with my laptop. It's a very nice laptop. I love the back-lit keyboard. The keyboard was really nice before I spilled juice on it, now the less used keys are a stick a bit before coming up, but thats my fault. It operates very smoothly. Cost me $500. My dad pay something around $400 new for his, but the keyboard sucks, isn't back lit, trackpad is absolute crap, and the computer just doesn't run as nice.

IMO that's why Mac gets to charge so much more for 'similarly' speced machines. It's got all these nice features.

From now on, everytime some basically makes a mac debate thread, they should be re-directed to the tons of discussions we've had before, so the same thing isn't said over and over again...

 

[tlarkin]

To hardware-centric people, who know nothing about software, a Mac is going to be hated. Remember folks, you're not buying just hardware, you've got OS X, iLife, and other nice things that Apple builds into a fully compliant POSIX OS.

I had a Mac, buying another soon, but my reasoning was being able to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, InDesign, etc., while having a decent terminal. Yes, I use GIMP for some things, but sometimes GIMP takes twenty minutes to do something that would take five minutes in Photoshop. Try putting something together that's RESTful- you'll need cURL in your terminal, which is possible with CygWin or MinGW, but that's an annoyance.

I've brought up the POSIX thing before, it usually gets ignored. Unix POSIX by nature is more secure than anything else done. It is also the most tried and tested technology out there. Since it was out before Microsoft even made an OS. Well, maybe DOS since POSIX came out in the 80s.

Actually, Microsoft, with Vista released something called the power shell. Which is a Unix-like shell with some Unix-like commands. It is lacking but at least it is a start.

Also, Windows 7 is the closest thing MS has done for an actual true multi-user platform. Windows is getting better, all they need now is a more robust shell and less bloat and become POSIX compliant.

 

[PohTayToez]

I know, I know, I just wanted to point out the absurdity of that particular statement.

My main issue with your pro-Mac argument is that your points, while factually sound, are sometimes all over the place and opposing. You argue that Mac is a good choice for the average end user because of it's simplicity and reliability, however how many end users do you think care about 802.11a compatibility, bluetooth, or IPS screens. More so, how many end users (if properly informed) do you think would choose to forgo these features for a cheaper or more powerful computer?

My issue with Apple has never been about quality, but price. The only reason that certain features Apple has would be so expensive on a PC is because Apple is the only company out there mass producing components with these features. Yes, it might be true that Apple offers these as a whole package for less than anyone else, however you could apply to the same argument to some PC with five CD drives and one of those stupid fingerprint scanners and say that there is no way you could find a similarly priced Mac with all of the same features. Or hell, let's just say I want a laptop with a 17" screen for less than $2,500.

Basically, my argument is that if you're going to spend $1000 on a computer, you could spend it on a PC where you can choose what the money goes towards and have a computer that is best suited to your particular needs, or you can go with what Steve Jobs thinks you should have which is a solid mid-range computer with lots of bells and whistles.

 

[tlarkin]

I know, I know, I just wanted to point out the absurdity of that particular statement.

I should have worded it better.

My main issue with your pro-Mac argument is that your points, while factually sound, are sometimes all over the place and opposing. You argue that Mac is a good choice for the average end user because of it's simplicity and reliability, however how many end users do you think care about 802.11a compatibility, bluetooth, or IPS screens. More so, how many end users (if properly informed) do you think would choose to forgo these features for a cheaper or more powerful computer?

Well, that is also part of it. For example my work has like 60 to 70 buildings. Each with 100s of access points. We run 802.11A for three reasons: 1) 5Ghz band 2) Not everywhere is pre N compatible yet and 3) 802.11A has less support, so users cannot hop on their smart phones, psps or gameboys and take up wifi bandwidth. So many users bring in personal laptops, or devices that support wireless and want to use them at work, but they cannot. Since you don't think about it, Apple puts it there for you, because you never know when you may need it. 802.11A radio networks are still used in very large wireless networks for several reasons. 1 of them is security. When you run A radios, you take out a ton of rogue devices that cannot connect simply because they do not support A radios. We will go N soon, but that is millions of dollars to upgrade all those buildings with new access points. You are right the end user doesn't think of those things. I have had to have departments return all sorts of wireless stuff they buy because it is not A radio compatible. If we went to G, we would lose the 5Ghz band, and allow smart phones and every other devices a way to connect. Yes our wireless is encrypted with a WPA passkey, but too many people know the passkey and it does get leaked. There is nothing I can do about that because that is all politics. When someone 4 pay scales above you asks for the WPA key, you give it to them, because you have to.

My issue with Apple has never been about quality, but price. The only reason that certain features Apple has would be so expensive on a PC is because Apple is the only company out there mass producing components with these features. Yes, it might be true that Apple offers these as a whole package for less than anyone else, however you could apply to the same argument to some PC with five CD drives and one of those stupid fingerprint scanners and say that there is no way you could find a similarly priced Mac with all of the same features. Or hell, let's just say I want a laptop with a 17" screen for less than $2,500.

I get your point. Your point is about choice, and you want to choose exactly how much dollars go into each component because you wouldn't mind cutting corners here and there to mitigate the price yet at the same time, put your money into the components you want to be higher end. Well, then Apple will never be for you. If you look at Apple's business model it is quite simple. They usually have 3 versions of every product. Each of them at a set price rate. Every 6 months they get refreshed with newer hardware, but the same price and the same 3 model tier pricing system. Not only are their machines simple to use, they give the consumer simple choices. The choice for every computer is, entry model, middle of the road model, high end model. I think this concept has actually helped their sales, as it makes it less tedious for a person with little knowledge to decide what is best for them.

Of course things like this don't apply to you and me, as we are probably considered advanced or power users, and are a whole different demographic to the average user.

Basically, my argument is that if you're going to spend $1000 on a computer, you could spend it on a PC where you can choose what the money goes towards and have a computer that is best suited to your particular needs, or you can go with what Steve Jobs thinks you should have which is a solid mid-range computer with lots of bells and whistles.

You know I used to be an Apple hater. In the 90s I only built and used PCs and I only ran Windows and occasionally dabbled in Linux. That was until I actually had to use my computers for work. When I started making my living through computers I started to use Macs. Over the years I became less of a hater, and by about maybe 2003 or 2004 I was almost fully switched to using Macs for work, and once they made the switch to Intel, it was a sealed deal. When I do my job, I want it to be done right the first time. I am 10 times more productive on my Mac than I have ever been on my PC. Once I learned the Mac layout, keyboard shortcuts, and had a feel for the OS I just went with it. I manage windows servers from my Mac, and it is awesome.

When I was younger and only really a hobbyist/gamer I wanted zero to do with Macs. The switch to NeXT based OS, intel, and how smooth the OS operates for multitasking I slowly switched over the years.

When I write my opinions or show out factual data how a Mac is not over priced, at least I am doing so with over a decade of usage and experience. Where as others just like to make false or blanketed statements. Take it for what you will, as some of it is my opinion. Some of it also though at the same time is factual information.

 

[AE7]

My issue with Apple has never been about quality, but price. The only reason that certain features Apple has would be so expensive on a PC is because Apple is the only company out there mass producing components with these features. Yes, it might be true that Apple offers these as a whole package for less than anyone else, however you could apply to the same argument to some PC with five CD drives and one of those stupid fingerprint scanners and say that there is no way you could find a similarly priced Mac with all of the same features. Or hell, let's just say I want a laptop with a 17" screen for less than $2,500.

Basically, my argument is that if you're going to spend $1000 on a computer, you could spend it on a PC where you can choose what the money goes towards and have a computer that is best suited to your particular needs, or you can go with what Steve Jobs thinks you should have which is a solid mid-range computer with lots of bells and whistles.

Which brings us to the argument, "Are you paying for an experience or just a product?"

 

[DMGrier]

The main thing that keeps coming up is end users. I can find a pc that will match and out perform the macbook, I think the only thing I think I could not find is the magnet plug in and multi touch pad but other then that I could match it everywhere else and if windows runs to slow or you prefer something stable then there is linux witch any of the ones based on debain is retarted easy to use and a end user will find any software they need in opensource. End users wont be using things like photo shop.

I think what we forget is I am basically calling apple a crook for the price they charge on the macbook, not the macbook pro or imacs. I would though go as far to call there mac desktop towers over priced as well.

 

[tlarkin]

The main thing that keeps coming up is end users. I can find a pc that will match and out perform the macbook, I think the only thing I think I could not find is the magnet plug in and multi touch pad but other then that I could match it everywhere else and if windows runs to slow or you prefer something stable then there is linux witch any of the ones based on debain is retarted easy to use and a end user will find any software they need in opensource. End users wont be using things like photo shop.

I think what we forget is I am basically calling apple a crook for the price they charge on the macbook, not the macbook pro or imacs. I would though go as far to call there mac desktop towers over priced as well.

Well then prove it. Find me a PC that out performs a Mac in every regard. Also, good luck finding a dual Xeon work station cheaper than the Mac Pro, that thing is actually very competitively priced.

End user using Linux? That would mean an end user would have to install Linux since Linux really doesn't come preinstalled, and I don't see that happening.

I have already pointed out that what you get when you buy a Mac is pretty fair market. Plus the fact that I can buy a Mac and then sell it for 80% of what I originally paid for it 2 years previous means that the over all cost of ownership is cheaper with a Mac. I am getting more out of my investment.

 

[CrayonMuncher]

[YT]gPYromrN7OI[/YT]

Specifically the bit about why apple is so special.

Btw may have seen this vid on here, so sorry if some else posted it before.

Edit: Just dealing with another thread and speaking of ridiculous prices dell charge an extra $420.00 to go from 6GB to 16GB, so basically $420.00 for 10GB of ram, you could buy at least 32GB of faster, higher quality ram for that. This is just the first ram I came across and it proves the point.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145345

 

[speedyink]

Only iMacs and iPads use IPS screens, but I was using it to make a point. Also, very very few laptops use as high quality screen as Apple does on their laptops. They use a screen with full sRGB spectrum coverage, and a high wide view TN screen. Any PC laptop that has the same quality screen (and it is only a few) start at higher prices than the Macbook Pro 13". This is why the native resolution on a 15" is 1440 x 900. Not many laptops actually support those resolutions native. So, regardless of not all of them having IPS screens, they still use higher quality more expensive screens than almost all PC laptops do.

You forgot the iphone 4, but i'll forgive you

I'll use my Acer Aspire 6920-6141 as an example. 16", 1920x1080, Wide Color Gamut, huge viewing angle (around 170 degrees). To me, it looks great. I get my specs and usb ports and pretty much everything I want in a laptop, and a pretty decent screen, all for i'm pretty around $1000 when it came out a couple years ago.

What exactly do you want to customize in OS X? You always say you hate certain things, like pixel size or whatever it was, and I just see that as being something you dislike. I can really hardly seeing the average user wanting to have more customizations.

The DPI thing was so I could keep my tv at it's full resolution and still be able to read things while i'm on my couch. Oh, and for my touchscreen netbook which may or may not have osx on it >_>. Really though I'd love making it not look like it has for almost 10 years. A different looking menu bar, custom dock background, different window looks..that sorta stuff. Otherwise, more power options for laptops would be nice, like disabling the sleep on lid close feature, and adjusting cpu throttling, I dunno, pretty much more than just brightness and screen timeout. The whole settings application in general seems pretty barren in the way of options, I realize terminal has the ability to change more settings, but I really don't have the spare time to learn command line. I don't even like using DOS even though I've learned it before.
I'm a control whore I suppose...Never ever been one to leave settings as default, I always like making it 'mine'

It is about quality of use. My Macs run faster, faster than my higher spec'd PC. This is because my higher spec custom built PC runs Windows. It has longer boot times, longer load times, and when I quit a rather heavy game like Starcraft II, my PC takes forever to free up that RAM it was using. When I quit on my Mac the memory is released almost instantly it seems in comparison. My Macbook Pro is just a core 2 duo with 4 gigs of RAM and an ATI x1900 (I think I could be wrong) and my PC is easily double the specs. Then again the Mac version of SCII is written in Open GL, where the PC version is written in DirectX, which probably makes a huge difference.

No argument there except for you can install Linux on PCs for that experience. I know, both performance and ease of use in osx but honestly the users who need the easy to learn interface anyway aren't gonna notice the couple seconds or milliseconds in some instances of difference. Even for me, my windows machines seem speedy. Things happen when I click them, I'm never waiting, and that's all I ask. I'm not sure what you mean by the games thing, if your referring to the slowness after exiting a game, or at which point you see your ram usage go down, since It's been years since I've encountered the former. In the end though the difference is pretty negligible.

I have had this discussion so many times I think I am just going to stop having it. You are correct, Apple does add in the bells and whistles. However, you try to match the Mac with a PC with equivalent features and benefits, the PC will cost the same, or sometimes more. The only downside is there is no option to take those features out for a cheaper Mac.

That's exactly my point. They make their computer and say your gonna have it like this. Nuh uh, at this point the biggest setback is the mindset. Not only that, but then they do stupid crap like blatantly leaving out display outputs on the actual machine so you need a dongle, which leaves more room for problems (in my experience anyway...i love having to have the dongle in the exact right position to not get static or blue vision). Not to mention blatant lack of USB ports, or hard drive space for that matter. Things like this just boggle my mind.

Well, find me a PC laptop, that has a 13" screen that supports 1280 x 800 native and is under $1,000. There is somewhat of a trade off here. If you want more USB ports, and more RAM and a better GPU you may find that in a laptop that has a crappier screen. The overall cost of ownership on a Mac is cheaper than a PC though. Macs have a resell value, and PCs do not. Every time I buy a new mac, I sell my old one for several hundred dollars, sometimes more, and apply it towards my new Mac. A couple years ago I sold my 5 year old dual G4 MDD desktop, for $700. I don't think you can ever sell a 5 year old PC for $700. I know you get it, and I am not picking on you, but after all of our debates you are one of the more level headed people here

Even some 11" netbooks have 1366x768 displays in them. 1280x800 is nothing impressive anymore, especially for a 13". I remember seeing a 7" sony netbook with a 1600x 900 wide(r)screen.
Macs do resell for more, but when you can buy a new PC for $300 you can see why. It's a matter of demand. I did however sell my old desktop (no monitor) for $350, when I had spent $900 on it 3 and a half years previous. Still almost half it's value, and a nice amount to go to my now computer (also $900)

 

[DMGrier]

Well then prove it. Find me a PC that out performs a Mac in every regard. Also, good luck finding a dual Xeon work station cheaper than the Mac Pro, that thing is actually very competitively priced.

End user using Linux? That would mean an end user would have to install Linux since Linux really doesn't come preinstalled, and I don't see that happening.

I have already pointed out that what you get when you buy a Mac is pretty fair market. Plus the fact that I can buy a Mac and then sell it for 80% of what I originally paid for it 2 years previous means that the over all cost of ownership is cheaper with a Mac. I am getting more out of my investment.

Well for starter mine that is listed, I think that the mac has a slightly higher resolution screen but I could not tell when I did the comparison at Best Buy a year ago when I bought mine, I was on this deployment running Ubuntu 10.04 and when I sat next to my mac buddies I didnt see there computer being able to open, run or close programs any faster then me. Oh and I got news for you, my wife without my help installed Ubuntu 10.04 on her laptop and set it up and my wife falls into the end user area. I am guessing you you do not have much experience with Debain packaged flavors cause then you would know how easy they install.

I am not arguing that certain macs are worth there value such as the Macbook Pro or even the Imacs and my apologies on the Mac Pro. I will stick by my guns though and the Macbook is well over priced. I would say my only issue with the Macbook Pro is I have to pay around $1800 for one with a decent gpu but thank god I don't believe in laptop gaming.

Can someone explain to me why Apple went from Nvidia to Radeon for a gpu?

innercx that was a amazing video

 

[lucasbytegenius]

Show me a 6 year old PC that can run Windows 7.

I could

I have a PowerMac G4 made in 1999 with dual 1.3 GHz G4s and 1.5 GB RAM, the monster is running 10.5, and rather well too
Just need to upgrade the Rage 128 Pro GPU :angry:

Linux and EUE? Well, that's mixed I believe. I have a 64 year old grandma (well, like a grandma to me ) using Ubuntu 10.10 on her laptop that was previously running Vista.
You know what? She loves it. Total noob with all respect, but she learned the ropes fairly quickly and doesn't want me to take it off.
And as an end user myself, I had no problem at all, just fyi

Also as an end user, if I went shopping for a MacBook I would gladly dole out the $1k for it, because that PowerMac ran circles around my PC in my sig that is easily 3 times what that Mac is. I found myself using my Mac more than my PC.

 

[DMGrier]

I could

I have a PowerMac G4 made in 1999 with dual 1.3 GHz G4s and 1.5 GB RAM, the monster is running 10.5, and rather well too
Just need to upgrade the Rage 128 Pro GPU :angry:

Linux and EUE? Well, that's mixed I believe. I have a 64 year old grandma (well, like a grandma to me ) using Ubuntu 10.10 on her laptop that was previously running Vista.
You know what? She loves it. Total noob with all respect, but she learned the ropes fairly quickly and doesn't want me to take it off.
And as an end user myself, I had no problem at all, just fyi

Also as an end user, if I went shopping for a MacBook I would gladly dole out the $1k for it, because that PowerMac ran circles around my PC in my sig that is easily 3 times what that Mac is. I found myself using my Mac more than my PC.

That is cool your grandma uses it. The debain packaged are so easy to use, my wife has said she would never go back to windows. The main reason why my wife went to ubuntu was a few weeks ago she made the comment that her windows machine was running slower then normal and was crashing a lot. We did anti virus scan's and even used malwarebytes but could not find a thing, I even looked through her software and she didn't have anything installed that wasn't MS. So I recommended ubuntu to her and told her to do the install on her self cause that is the best way to learn. She has loved it ever since.

 

[lucasbytegenius]

That is cool your grandma uses it. The debain packaged are so easy to use, my wife has said she would never go back to windows. The main reason why my wife went to ubuntu was a few weeks ago she made the comment that her windows machine was running slower then normal and was crashing a lot. We did anti virus scan's and even used malwarebytes but could not find a thing, I even looked through her software and she didn't have anything installed that wasn't MS. So I recommended ubuntu to her and told her to do the install on her self cause that is the best way to learn. She has loved it ever since.

Debian

Yeah they are easy to use, but I have found that OpenSUSE is pretty slick too. I keep switching between Ubuntu and OpenSUSE.