3 ms·

A $1000 laptop with a $200 Windows license is still cheaper than a $1500 Mac with "free" macOS.

by dist-epoch 3y ago

nvy 3y ago
Sure but then you're using some cheap plastic Acer piece of trash.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  That's more in the $300-500 range.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I'm sorry to say that paying more for a Windows laptop only makes the number on the spec sheet get bigger, it doesn't ever seem to actually change the build quality. https://www.acer.com/us-en/laptops/aspire/aspire-7-intel/pdp/NH.Q81AA.001 https://www.acer.com/us-en/laptops/aspire/aspire-7-intel/pdp...
    - hu3 3y ago
      One can always find bad deals if they're inclined enough. However they can also research about good Windows/Linux laptops and contribute to the conversation. Some models among these are great: Thinkpad (these are legendary), TP Yogas, LG grams (ultra slim with almost a day of battery life), Dell enterprise line. I'm sure there's more.
bitwize 3y ago
And has shit performance, shit battery life, and runs shit hot compared to that Mac.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Intel macs did not do great on the whole "runs shit hot" front.
  - bitwize 3y ago
    Nor the performance front, as they were always throttled for thermal reasons. Thankfully they slapped their forehead and said "Doy! We hired the best chip designers in the world for a reason, guys!"
  - asyx 3y ago
    Do they still sell Intel Macs? If not that's not a problem you need to concern yourself with. I'd always go for a Mac until I can't these days. It's my default computer recommendation. Not in budget, need to play games, need to do something Apple doesn't want you to? Guess it's not gonna be the MacBook then. But otherwise? Get the Mac. Best laptop I've ever owned.
hughesjj 3y ago
I'd rather not have the $200 windows license at all and just use linux
shortcake27 3y ago
Is it really though, when you consider the realistic lifespan of the device? I literally got 10 years of use out of a 2011 MacBook pro, and I now run a second-hand 2018 Macbook Pro which is still going strong, despite being an Intel the performance is still fine, and it should hit the 10 year mark as well. I don’t think there are many other brands getting a real 10 years of use.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  > Is it really though, when you consider the realistic lifespan of the device Define 'realistic' while excluding fanboying. My T440 (2013) is running fine. My desktop was first built on EPoX EP-MF4 Ultra-3 (~2007) and run Vista, was 'upgraded' to GA-Z77X (~2012) somewhere in 2016 and went out of use ~2019 when I was forced to relocate and use that T440 exclusively 'till 2021.
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    Just because someone has a different opinion to you, it doesn’t mean they’re fanboying. Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant; it’s well known that average Mac ownership costs are lower than the average PC. Straight from the horses mouth: “IBM confirms that Macs are $535 less expensive than PCs” https://www.jamf.com/blog/debate-over-ibm-confirms-that-macs-are-535-less-expensive-than-pcs/ https://www.jamf.com/blog/debate-over-ibm-confirms-that-macs...
    - justsomehnguy 3y ago
      > Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant Says the guy citing "I literally got 10 years of use out of a 2011 MacBook pro" from himself. > it’s well known For a business user. Are a business user? Do you understand the needs of the business user? Do you have the same needs as the business user? My answer on that for you would be a solid 'No' for all questions, because you are a home user. > IBM confirms that Macs are $535 less expensive than PCs LOL. You just searched the Internet and copypasted the first article which suited your anecdote? The thing you quote is the title and can't be found in the article. Now let's actually read the article and bash you: >> But isn’t it expensive, and doesn’t it overload IT? No. IBM found that not only do PCs drive twice the amount of support calls, they’re also three times more expensive. That’s right, depending on the model, IBM is saving anywhere from $273 - $543 per Mac compared to a PC, over a four-year lifespan. “And this reflects the best pricing we’ve ever gotten from Microsoft,” Previn said. Multiply that number by the 100,000+ Macs IBM expects to have deployed by the end of the year, and we’re talking some serious savings. Because you are a home user with a ten years old MacBook, you don't understand what: There is only a limited variations of Macs ever. Because mighty A just don't make many variants. There are thousands of variants of PCs even from IBM/Lenovo itself, not even including the top dogs like DELL and HP/E. Less SKUs => less variants to support, less cost to support and... less variants if you need something what Tim Apple doesn't allows you to do. It's over 4 year lifespan. Nobody keeps enterprise client hardware for 10 years. There is no analysis from IBM how much it would cost them to keep Macs for ten years. Nobody upgrades the client machines in the enterprise. You surely 'upped' your 2011 MacBook with more memory, SSD drive and whatever, right? Well, in the enterprise you just get a new machine 3 or 4 years later. That's how they work. 'Old' machine + two new machines are cheaper than a 10 year old PC? Lol. Oh and it's from $273. For a small subset of machines they replace with Macs ie most likely the notebooks for the lowest bunch. And finally and most importantly: it's ownership cost for the enterprise. YOUR cost of ownership is essentially zero (do you pay yourself for the support calls for your own MacBook?). You are a home user. You are not a business user and ownership cost is not applicable for you, you don't have a helpdesk, you don't manage a fleet of MacBooks, you don't have the whole departments which works on supporting the hard and software for internal business users.

A $1000 laptop with a $200 Windows license is still cheaper than a $1500 Mac with "free" macOS.

nvy 3y ago

Sure but then you're using some cheap plastic Acer piece of trash.

hughesjj 3y ago
That's more in the $300-500 range.
- Spivak 3y ago
  I'm sorry to say that paying more for a Windows laptop only makes the number on the spec sheet get bigger, it doesn't ever seem to actually change the build quality. https://www.acer.com/us-en/laptops/aspire/aspire-7-intel/pdp/NH.Q81AA.001 https://www.acer.com/us-en/laptops/aspire/aspire-7-intel/pdp...
  - hu3 3y ago
    One can always find bad deals if they're inclined enough. However they can also research about good Windows/Linux laptops and contribute to the conversation. Some models among these are great: Thinkpad (these are legendary), TP Yogas, LG grams (ultra slim with almost a day of battery life), Dell enterprise line. I'm sure there's more.

bitwize 3y ago

And has shit performance, shit battery life, and runs shit hot compared to that Mac.

mrguyorama 3y ago
Intel macs did not do great on the whole "runs shit hot" front.
- bitwize 3y ago
  Nor the performance front, as they were always throttled for thermal reasons. Thankfully they slapped their forehead and said "Doy! We hired the best chip designers in the world for a reason, guys!"
- asyx 3y ago
  Do they still sell Intel Macs? If not that's not a problem you need to concern yourself with. I'd always go for a Mac until I can't these days. It's my default computer recommendation. Not in budget, need to play games, need to do something Apple doesn't want you to? Guess it's not gonna be the MacBook then. But otherwise? Get the Mac. Best laptop I've ever owned.

hughesjj 3y ago

I'd rather not have the $200 windows license at all and just use linux

shortcake27 3y ago

Is it really though, when you consider the realistic lifespan of the device? I literally got 10 years of use out of a 2011 MacBook pro, and I now run a second-hand 2018 Macbook Pro which is still going strong, despite being an Intel the performance is still fine, and it should hit the 10 year mark as well. I don’t think there are many other brands getting a real 10 years of use.

justsomehnguy 3y ago
> Is it really though, when you consider the realistic lifespan of the device Define 'realistic' while excluding fanboying. My T440 (2013) is running fine. My desktop was first built on EPoX EP-MF4 Ultra-3 (~2007) and run Vista, was 'upgraded' to GA-Z77X (~2012) somewhere in 2016 and went out of use ~2019 when I was forced to relocate and use that T440 exclusively 'till 2021.
- shortcake27 3y ago
  Just because someone has a different opinion to you, it doesn’t mean they’re fanboying. Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant; it’s well known that average Mac ownership costs are lower than the average PC. Straight from the horses mouth: “IBM confirms that Macs are $535 less expensive than PCs” https://www.jamf.com/blog/debate-over-ibm-confirms-that-macs-are-535-less-expensive-than-pcs/ https://www.jamf.com/blog/debate-over-ibm-confirms-that-macs...
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    > Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant Says the guy citing "I literally got 10 years of use out of a 2011 MacBook pro" from himself. > it’s well known For a business user. Are a business user? Do you understand the needs of the business user? Do you have the same needs as the business user? My answer on that for you would be a solid 'No' for all questions, because you are a home user. > IBM confirms that Macs are $535 less expensive than PCs LOL. You just searched the Internet and copypasted the first article which suited your anecdote? The thing you quote is the title and can't be found in the article. Now let's actually read the article and bash you: >> But isn’t it expensive, and doesn’t it overload IT? No. IBM found that not only do PCs drive twice the amount of support calls, they’re also three times more expensive. That’s right, depending on the model, IBM is saving anywhere from $273 - $543 per Mac compared to a PC, over a four-year lifespan. “And this reflects the best pricing we’ve ever gotten from Microsoft,” Previn said. Multiply that number by the 100,000+ Macs IBM expects to have deployed by the end of the year, and we’re talking some serious savings. Because you are a home user with a ten years old MacBook, you don't understand what: There is only a limited variations of Macs ever. Because mighty A just don't make many variants. There are thousands of variants of PCs even from IBM/Lenovo itself, not even including the top dogs like DELL and HP/E. Less SKUs => less variants to support, less cost to support and... less variants if you need something what Tim Apple doesn't allows you to do. It's over 4 year lifespan. Nobody keeps enterprise client hardware for 10 years. There is no analysis from IBM how much it would cost them to keep Macs for ten years. Nobody upgrades the client machines in the enterprise. You surely 'upped' your 2011 MacBook with more memory, SSD drive and whatever, right? Well, in the enterprise you just get a new machine 3 or 4 years later. That's how they work. 'Old' machine + two new machines are cheaper than a 10 year old PC? Lol. Oh and it's from $273. For a small subset of machines they replace with Macs ie most likely the notebooks for the lowest bunch. And finally and most importantly: it's ownership cost for the enterprise. YOUR cost of ownership is essentially zero (do you pay yourself for the support calls for your own MacBook?). You are a home user. You are not a business user and ownership cost is not applicable for you, you don't have a helpdesk, you don't manage a fleet of MacBooks, you don't have the whole departments which works on supporting the hard and software for internal business users.