3 ms·
I think it's a historically common consensus that high powered macs are considerably more expensive than their equally powered non-mac alternative. My historic
by sukuriant 14y ago
I think it's a historically common consensus that high powered macs are considerably more expensive than their equally powered non-mac alternative.
My historical stance on the matter has been that the money goes to R&D. I have no proof to validate my assertion, though.
And some quick links to compare. I could have taken more time on selecting the links, but this was pretty quick:
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD104LL/A http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD104LL/A
vs
http://www.alienware.com/Landings/laptops.aspx http://www.alienware.com/Landings/laptops.aspx
- rimantas 14y ago> I think it's a historically common consensus that high > powered macs are considerably more expensive than their > equally powered non-mac alternative. By consensus you mean misconception? I don't remember Macbook Air "clones" being cheaper by $1000. Some are even more expensive. OTOH, I prefer to use computers, not specs. "Multitouch trackpad" may look the same in specs, but in practice it makes huge difference.
- sukuriant 14y agoThose aren't the specs I look at or think about. I look more at: 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz RAM Core i7 3.2Ghz Processor nVidia 650M 256GB SSD 1920x1080 resolution My mouse is usually a peripheral. I would also imagine a clone to cost more than the original anyway, in many cases.