PC vs Mac Price Comparisons

[KKOB]

Question. Which offers better value for money, PCs or Macs?

 

June 08, 2007 (Computerworld) -- People have been arguing online about how much more expensive Macs are than PCs -- or not -- for more than a decade (and in print for years before that). These discussions usually involve some hard facts but also some persistent myths. As a longtime Windows guy who has recently migrated to the Mac, I think I'm in a pretty good position to try and sort out reality from fiction. Let's take a look at what you can really get for your money these days.

 

But first, let me say to all those people who have ever bought a Packard Bell or eMachines PC and believe that great value in a computer means any model that sells for $600 or less: I agree -- Apple doesn't have an answer for you. In fact, I suggest that you skip this article entirely. You're not going to find anything of interest in it.

 

It's the hardware

For those of you who are left, what I have found in my research is that neither side has a lock on good value. If you start with Apple's relatively short list of SKUs (three or four model variations for each of its lines, such as MacBook Pro, MacBook and iMac) and then look for comparable Windows machines, you'll find that Apple bests the competition in some ways and not in others, but the pricing overall is surprisingly on par.

 

Only a few years ago, it seemed like a no-brainer that Windows hardware was much cheaper. But if you're talking name-brand hardware, that's just no longer the case.

 

On the other hand, if you search the Windows side first, you'll quickly discover machines that -- in features and price -- fit in between the Mac SKUs. And in those niches, they represent very good values. So there's one answer to the question of whether Macs or Windows represent a better value: If one of those "in between" PCs suits your needs best, you'd be paying an unnecessary premium to get a Mac instead.

 

Let's look at some hard numbers. I started my research with top-of-the-line notebooks -- I spent an hour on Dell's site trying to find the cheapest notebook that offered everything Apple's $2,799 MacBook Pro 17 provides. That includes:

 

Glossy 17-in. screen with 1,680-by-1,050-pixel resolution (optional 1,920-by-1,200 resolution for $100 more)

2.4-GHz Core 2 Duo processor

2GB of RAM (upgradeable to 4GB)

256MB Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT video

160GB 5,400-rpm SATA hard drive

8x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)

Gigabit Ethernet port

54Mbit/sec. a/b/g/Draft n Wi-Fi

Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, ExpressCard/34 card slot

Three USB ports

One FireWire 800 port

One FireWire 400 port

DVI port

Built-in iSight video camera

One-year warranty (upgradeable to three years)

(See Apple's site for the complete MacBook Pro technical specifications.)

 

I was a little surprised to find that Dell's Inspiron line doesn't currently offer processing power equaling that of the MacBook Pro. To get a 2.33-GHz Core 2 Duo processor (a 2.4-GHz version isn't available yet), you have to move up to Dell's more expensive XPS M1710 with Vista Home Premium.

 

Once I did that, though, and tricked out the M1710 with only those extras it had to have to compete with the MacBook Pro, I was surprised to see the Dell come in at a whopping $3,459, some $650 more than the Apple product. Now, it's true that the Dell has some additional features (higher-end video and six USB ports instead of three, for example), but it also weighs nearly two pounds more and is much chunkier (1.69-in. thick, compared with 1 in.).

 

More HERE

 

Ding! Mac vs. PC cost analysis, Round II

Scot Finnie

 

 

 

August 09, 2007 (Computerworld) There's no question about it. My Mac vs. PC cost analysis column, which focused on the relative costs of Mac and Windows hardware, struck a chord. I was praised and lambasted around the Internet for it when it appeared in June.

 

It seemed to me that people who criticized this story missed the key points I was trying to get across:

 

1. This was a pure, hardware-based, speeds-and-feeds kind of comparison. I was comparing the hardware goods only, including CPU, chip set, RAM, video, display, hard-drive capacity and specs, ports and upgradeability, dimensions and weight, and so on.

 

In other words, I was attempting to make an objective comparison that did not inject any evaluation of the hardware, anything at all about the software, or anything about my personal experience with the operating systems and hardware involved. It was an on-paper comparison.

 

I did that purposely to lay the groundwork for further analysis about the value of Macs vs. Windows PCs. I started with the objective measures.

 

2. The main point I was trying to make is that when you compare Macs with comparably equipped Windows PCs, sometimes Macs beat Windows PCs in the price/performance comparison. Sometimes Windows PCs beat Macs. Overall, there's relative parity.

 

There is a time component to this kind of analysis. The Windows PC makers lagged behind Apple for a while on the CPU front, but with the release of the Santa Rosa platform (Intel's marketing name is Centrino Pro), many are catching up again. The value meter may be tipping a bit toward Windows PCs now as a result. But this ebb and flow is a natural part of computer valuations. It never rests. Pricing is always in flux.

 

It's definitely true that Apple Mac pricing has not always approached parity. I've made this comparison before. Macs have clearly been more expensive than Windows PCs in the distant past. But if you're talking about name-brand Windows PCs from reputable manufacturers like Dell, HP, Toshiba, Acer, Gateway, Lenovo and others, right now, the out-the-door pricing is more or less on par.

 

Important point: For a direct comparison to be made, there has to be a Mac SKU that directly equates to the exact set of features you want. And that's where we enter into a completely subjective realm and get away from intrinsic value.

 

Just because you don't want this or that small feature that the Mac offers doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't want it. And vice versa. So if you desire a specific set of features that falls between specific Mac SKUs and the way those machines can be configured, then some Windows PC somewhere may, in fact, be a better value -- for you.

 

This point isn't unique to computer sales. Buy a Honda automobile, for example, and you'll find there are three or four models for any car type, and the only options are dealer installable. Like Honda, Apple has smartly positioned its specific models.

 

There's also a corresponding point to be made: The Macintosh lineup consists of five model lines and 12 basic SKUs (or specific models), each of which offers additional configuration. There are three desktop and two notebook model lines.

 

When you look closely at these model lines, there are economy, middle-of-the-road and high-end models. Macs are no longer just premium computers. Apple changed its stance on that markedly over the past 10 years. If you're not that familiar with Macs, you have to open your mind, take a look at the different Mac models and closely compare the specs.

 

Dean Abanila, technology specialist at the Rhode Island School of Design, said it well: "I work with more than a few students and faculty looking for computer-buying advice. Many are making PC-to-Mac transitions. Your analysis is dead on. At least twice per week, I spec out both Macs and PCs for folks. More often than not, the Mac is cheaper, and this has been the case for some time now.

 

"Before I start to sound like a Mac fanboy," Abanila goes on, "let me say that I often recommend PCs, and will continue to do so. I support both platforms here at RISD. As I am sure you are aware, recommendations depend on the user's goals."

 

One last hardware point: I agree with those of you who wrote to say you're with me on the comparison, but as purchasers of corporate microcomputing hardware, you feel Apple doesn't have a product that meets your needs. Apple has a huge opportunity right now with the pushback on Vista and the upswing in Mac sales to release a Mac designed for business.

 

At my company, where there are many new Mac users, the MacBook Pro 15 has become the standard. But a laptop that starts at $1,999 is pretty expensive for some companies to justify. I think the MacBook might be a solid alternative for some companies, and its pricing ($1,099 and up) is more in line with, or even more attractive than, that of small-screen Windows notebooks from Lenovo and others.

 

That said, there's room for a MacBook business machine that has a better keyboard, a better-looking case and perhaps a docking station. I also don't think the iMac is a great desktop computer for business. I don't like the integrated monitor from a support perspective.

 

More HERE

 

I thought these articles were pretty good, very recent and annoyingly American, still, a good read for people thinking about switching. Answers a few concerns and tries to make sense of the belief that Macs are just ridiculously overpriced.

[theguyfromspark]

Is this going to turn into a Mac Vs Windows thread again? I hope not

[KKOB]

Is this going to turn into a Mac Vs Windows thread again? I hope not

 

Likewise . . .

 

Both do things differently, neither are better, just is the difference in purchase price justified in the long run, and which has better value for money.

 

*snip* ~Shorty

[Shorty]

This thread has the potential for a decent discussion so I'm opening it.

 

Let's try to look at this objectively, be honest, back up your points, anyone who turns this into bitch fight is getting an infraction. Clear?

 

Right, here's my thoughts:

 

Price comparisons work in two ways, and here we mostly seem to be concentrating on one. Higher quality for a better price. What the mac lacks though, is any kind of option for those on a budget. If you only want to spend £400-500 on a new system (as my g/f does, actually) you have a choice of: a second hand or old mac, not cool, trendy, particularly powerful, probably not intel, missing a lot of cool stuff, or a fairly modern laptop running a core 2 duo (T2-4k ish probably) 1GB of RAM and, if you look in the right places, Vista Home Premium.

 

I thought a mac would be good choice for my g/f but when we went to the mac store, even the student side, it was just way out of the price range. And you could find a very decent laptop sub £500....

[Sarka]

Yeah, it completely depends what your looking for, and price range included. If you want a good, high quality desktop for £800, the new iMac is a great choice, especially if you're in to video editing, lots of photos and all that jazz.

 

I've heard peopel say my MacMini is a waste of money with it's specs. But I find it much more useful and speedy than my old Dell (£800, a year and a half ago). Especially with regard to photo/video. However, whenever I need to play any games (which is rare), I go back to my PC, located conveintly to the left of me.

 

However, I do think the OS is worth a lot - it's fanastic. And not having to always worry about virus' (though yeah, there are some, I know). When I go to Uni, I'll be investing extra cash to get another Mac. Although it's more expensive, the design and smoothness makes up for it.

[Caris]

6 word answer for this thread.

 

You get what you pay for.

[Ant-Shimmin]

Depends what you need and what you want from a PC....

 

If it does what you want = Good Value

 

If it exceeds expection= Great Value

 

If it doesn't = Shit Value

 

Pretty much goes for any product

[Jasper]

Depends what you need and what you want from a PC....

 

If it does what you want = Good Value

 

If it exceeds expection= Great Value

 

If it doesn't = Shit Value

 

Pretty much goes for any product

 

But that doesn't say anything about this discussion at all. It works just as well for mac.

 

Macs are a great value thanks to their OS, the design and the fact that you don't buy it and feel helplessly lost already. By wich I mean - buy a PC - any - there's a better one out there. With mac you're assured that the coming two years, you're still using the topo-of-the-mac-bill. The mac bill might not sem so powerfull in numbers - but I tell you, the OS certainly backs up that one.

 

Here's a major difference: Windows Vista requires much more powerfull computer whereas MacOS X does not. So why would they give you a megathon of RAM if the system doesn't need it? So you look at Mac RAM and say 'hey that's little' - but in fact, it's enough to get you running.

 

So why are we looking at the numbers? Who can get the tasks done is what we should look at and who can do it the fastest. And macs just don't need that much RAM to do the same thing as Vista, so it doesn't need more. It doesn't need as much Ghz as a PC to do a task, so it doesn't have it.

 

That's my opinion, though?

[Sanchez]

Erm, iMac comes with 2GB standard, the same as most vista computers and definitely more than enough for vista. Besides, one of vista's features is that it's very scalable towards RAM and will automatically adjust settings for the best efficiency.

 

you're assured that the coming two years, you're still using the topo-of-the-mac-bill. The mac bill might not sem so powerfull in numbers - but I tell you, the OS certainly backs up that one

 

More like 6 months.

[Slaggis]

Erm, iMac comes with 2GB standard, the same as most vista computers and definitely more than enough for vista. Besides, one of vista's features is that it's very scalable towards RAM and will automatically adjust settings for the best efficiency.

 

 

 

More like 6 months.

 

Yup. I only have 1GB and with vista my PC runs faster than when it was on XP. Thats with Windows Aero etc on too.

[motion]

Vista was so slow with 1GB RAM and just generally crap that I went back to the far superior XP.

[Jasper]

Erm, iMac comes with 2GB standard, the same as most vista computers and definitely more than enough for vista. Besides, one of vista's features is that it's very scalable towards RAM and will automatically adjust settings for the best efficiency.

 

 

 

More like 6 months.

 

Yes, macs come with 2 Gb RAM - but the OS will run just as smooth on 512 Mb, really (I'm using it and even Photoshop CS3 runs quite smooth on my 1.23 Ghz, 512 Mb RAM iBook).

 

And yes, every six months there's some refreshment, but the last iMac model was on the market for 2 years. Yes, they adjusted the inside every once in a while - but mostly insignificant changes, like bumping up the processor speed with 0.2 Ghz (wich doesn't make a lot of difference, really) - but the compujter prices remain the same and the value remains (mostly) the same for two years. Every six months Apple changes a few pieces to make the puzzl;e more interesting, but still - the big updates come once every two years.

 

Vista will not run smoothly on 512 Mb RAM with full options enabled. I'm pretty sure of that. AERO won't function - and really, what is Vista without AERO? MacOS X works on any mac, on any RAM configuration starting from 312 Mb of RAM and higher (trust me, a friend of mine runs Tiger smoothly on his PowerPC G3 580-or-something Ghz with 320 Mb of RAM). So yes, Vista adjust to the RAM - but the entire Vista can't adjust on anything below 512 Mb.

[Sanchez]

Vista will not run smoothly on 512 Mb RAM with full options enabled. I'm pretty sure of that. AERO won't function - and really, what is Vista without AERO?

It's a stable OS with some features sorely lacking in XP.

[motion]

The biggest thing keeping me from going back to Vista is its lack of the old media player, that looked like this:

 

 

And I know that there's "Classic Media Player" available for download but it's crap compared to the original, microsoft one.

[Sanchez]

If you're talking about Media Player Classic then you're sorely mistaken because it's the best media player for Windows.

[Slaggis]

The biggest thing keeping me from going back to Vista is its lack of the old media player, that looked like this:

 

 

And I know that there's "Classic Media Player" available for download but it's crap compared to the original, microsoft one.

 

 

What's so great about that old one though? Explain.

[McPhee]

Vista will not run smoothly on 512 Mb RAM with full options enabled. I'm pretty sure of that. AERO won't function - and really, what is Vista without AERO? MacOS X works on any mac, on any RAM configuration starting from 312 Mb of RAM and higher (trust me, a friend of mine runs Tiger smoothly on his PowerPC G3 580-or-something Ghz with 320 Mb of RAM). So yes, Vista adjust to the RAM - but the entire Vista can't adjust on anything below 512 Mb.

 

 

Vista can run on 256MB RAM, it's just a lot better on 512MB (what i use). If you want i'll go remove a module to prove the point?

 

So theres no Aero? Big deal, the Aero touches are beyond anything in OS X anyway, they're competing with Beryl (linux)

 

Anywho, down to the point. Those articles aren't very good. They take a Mac and look for a PC with the same screen size, processor and price and, when they can't find one draw the conclusion that Macs are better value. Macs are good value but that ain't the way to compare them, raw specs wise the PC has Apple bent over a table. The Mac value is in the build quality and bundled software (both of which are good!)

 

What's so great about that old one though? Explain.

 

The origional Media Player has more codecs, Microsoft had to make they're player more incompatable in later versions (can't remember why, prob the EU or something) so they came up with the plug-ins idea and just let other people add the compatability to media player instead.

 

People still use Media Player Classic because, like VLC Media Player it will play almost anything

[Slaggis]

Vista can run on 256MB RAM, it's just a lot better on 512MB (what i use). If you want i'll go remove a module to prove the point?

 

So theres no Aero? Big deal, the Aero touches are beyond anything in OS X anyway, they're competing with Beryl (linux)

 

Anywho, down to the point. Those articles aren't very good. They take a Mac and look for a PC with the same screen size, processor and price and, when they can't find one draw the conclusion that Macs are better value. Macs are good value but that ain't the way to compare them, raw specs wise the PC has Apple bent over a table. The Mac value is in the build quality and bundled software (both of which are good!)

 

 

 

The origional Media Player has more codecs, Microsoft had to make they're player more incompatable in later versions (can't remember why, prob the EU or something) so they came up with the plug-ins idea and just let other people add the compatability to media player instead.

 

People still use Media Player Classic because, like VLC Media Player it will play almost anything

 

Ah right, I get you now.

I could never go back to it, I just love wmp11 too much, and plus, I basically only use MP3 files so it's fine for me.

[motion]

If you're talking about Media Player Classic then you're sorely mistaken because it's the best media player for Windows.

 

What's so great about that old one though? Explain.

 

Let me distinguish quickly between:

 

Media Player Original that came with XP (not the big fancy one that takes up your whole screen), the simple grey modest one.

 

Media Player Classic which is this new fangled third party program created to resemble Media Player Original.

 

The latter, ie. Classic, is pants. It really is. Yes it plays loads of file types, but it's not as usable as the previous one. Maximing the window screws up the video, and its far too bloated. Lots of other crappy niggly reasons but that will do for now. I want media player original on vista.

[KKOB]

Some good points have been raised, surprisingly.

 

I see that windows is great at what it does, running consistently well, 70% of the time without much serious issue, with a hodge poge of hardware. Vista is very scaleable which is both good and bad, good because it'll run on lower spec, bad because you end up with too many different OS configs, and a lack of a consistent feature set and style. Something which OS X has on anything offering only 2 configs (normal and server) and a consistent style and feature set which will run on a 3 year old mac or older in some cases. Aero is a a very big thing if you ask me, as without it, or DX 10 if your a big PC gamer, i can't see any real reason to upgrade. Aero IS nice, OS X is still more functional if you ask me but still M$ have tried to improve on XP, it's just not that big a leap for the very very long wait it had, especially as some good announced features were cut.

 

You can't compare a random PC of the same spec to a mac, thats why they had to work mac to PC. Macs just have lots of small extras like iLife, a camera, weight, a light up keyboard on the MBP, sudden motion sensor etc which make it harder to draw comparisons which are fair.

 

I'm sure Leopard needs 512MB RAM or even a gig, and some parts of iLife 08 need a gig of ram to work properly.

 

VLC IS awesome!!!

 

I also like the thumb nail type view of something thats minimised of hidden behind windows in the taskbar, although on a Mac this view is constantly displayed on minimised windows in the dock, with live video as well, like i think vista does.

 

New computers with Vista i imagine are good solid windows PCs, i hope that they experience less problems than i have had with XP, as time wasted maintaining the PC is very expensive and can be considered part of the value of having a mac. Not having to worry about viruses and firewalls so much saves me a lot of hassle anyway, which is part of the reason why once you go mac, you don't go back.

 

Man this is a long rambling post, next one shall be more concise, i hope

[Ant-Shimmin]

The Best Media Player for Windows is VLC...

[Sanchez]

The latter, ie. Classic, is pants. It really is. Yes it plays loads of file types, but it's not as usable as the previous one. Maximing the window screws up the video, and its far too bloated. Lots of other crappy niggly reasons but that will do for now. I want media player original on vista.

Wrong Wrong Wrong wrong.

Media Player Classic is the best video player on windows. It really is. VLC would be a decent contender but it can't do subtitles at all, it completely ignores formatting and doesn't knock out the notes subbers insert using {} tags. Otherwise they're pretty much the same.

 

"It isn't usable" This is a very vague statement but if you're talking about GUI's, well let's take a look.

Windows media player 6.4

Media Player Classic

 

IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME. It couldn't possibly be any simpler. If you're your average joe you won't even need to look any deeper into the settings, as MPC will get right to the job at hand. As far as I remember, The old windows media player was useless and I would curse every time it opened itself because the streaming never worked and at that period videos on the web were a total mess.

 

"Maximing the window screws up the video,"

No it doesn't, and if it did then you just need to familiarise yourself with the

Right Click > Video Frame menu Which actually gives you a wide range of aspect ratio's to choose from. At least I assume that's your problem with it, and I can't think of any others you might have.

 

"and its far too bloated."

What? Seriously I'm doubting you've even used Media Player Classic here. You realise it's a 4MB standalone exe, right? By comparison VLC's files are 8MB. I don't understand how it could be any trimmer without sacrificing valuable options. I'm looking through all the options right now and I don't see anything that says to me "This doesn't belong in a media player"

 

 

bad because you end up with too many different OS configs, and a lack of a consistent feature set and style.

Can you put this into context for me please? I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. If you're talking about all the different versions of windows then I should point out that they vary in the number of features they offer (because microsoft are greedy bastards) rather than the specs that are meant to run them.

 

Aero is a a very big thing if you ask me, as without it, or DX 10 if your a big PC gamer, i can't see any real reason to upgrade. Aero IS nice, OS X is still more functional if you ask me but still M$ have tried to improve on XP, it's just not that big a leap for the very very long wait it had, especially as some good announced features were cut.

Again I don't entirely understand what you mean by "OSX is more functional". In what sense? In usability? In features? In any case it's very much dependent on the user and generally impossible to generalise what OS is better to a user than others.

 

I don't know about the whole Vista delay thing.

Fact: Vista was released late and had over promised features. The question is, do I care?

Why am I judging the OS by what it could have been, rather than what is being presented to me? At no point during my XP lifetime I was thinking "damn I'm not satisfied with this" and when I looked at OSX and I saw some of the features it had none of them appeared that useful to me, or the didn't seem to merit the time and frustration of learning the inner workings of a new OS, let alone the the 800+ pounds I would need to spend just to use these.

You can't compare a random PC of the same spec to a mac, thats why they had to work mac to PC. Macs just have lots of small extras like iLife, a camera, weight, a light up keyboard on the MBP, sudden motion sensor etc which make it harder to draw comparisons which are fair.

Yes you can, It's up to the user to put a price on these features. Would I really use iLife? Do I care how heavy my laptop is really? "It's just a magnet after all"

I also like the thumb nail type view of something thats minimised of hidden behind windows in the taskbar, although on a Mac this view is constantly displayed on minimised windows in the dock, with live video as well, like i think vista does.

Yes, vista will play the file live in the taskbar thumbnails.

 

New computers with Vista i imagine are good solid windows PCs, i hope that they experience less problems than i have had with XP, as time wasted maintaining the PC is very expensive and can be considered part of the value of having a mac. Not having to worry about viruses and firewalls so much saves me a lot of hassle anyway, which is part of the reason why once you go mac, you don't go back.

As a Windows power user, the virus and firewall arguments mean very little to me because I don't lose my intelligence when I sit down to the computer. I don't get viruses. I haven't had a virus since Windows 98 (at which point I was 9 or 10) because I understand how my computer works and I know instinctively when something is likely to infect me. Of course, to the normal user this doesn't really apply.

So is a virus checker really that much hassle? Many computers come with the pre installed. Firewalls aren't really needed further than the default windows one thanks to the hardware firewall that come standard in routers these days. There are plenty of good free anti virus programs and indeed, many of them are better than ones you have to pay for. Once you have an anti virus installed, where's the hassle?

[Jasper]

You raise more questions than you answer, Sanchez. Can you answer all the questions you raised?

 

Os X is more functional because it's visual interface wasn't just designed to look pretty. How nice AERO may look, Windows classic works just fine on it (and even Luna looks pretty functional). And Classic saves you space. There is no need for AERO to run, except it just looks better and eats your computer's power supply. I think what Takeo meant is that if you look at OS X, the space in it is pretty but just as well usefull. The interface doesn't include to much visual clutter (I'm looking at you, explorer) and is simple to navigate. Yes, it looks good. Yes, it works well. No, it doesn't lose to much space just for the sake of looking good.

 

And you do have to watch out for virusses, not? Think about every mail you open, about every file and make sure that windows verified your acces ('Are you really sure you want to open that file? Yes. Really? Yes. Really? Stop bugging me, Windows!'). On mac you can open what you want, chances of finding a virus are small. And the latest hack people found in Apple's latest and greatest OS takes nine hours of an open safari window (no closing!) to work. Au contraire to hacking into Windows in a matter of minutes.

 

And come on, you're totally off course with your 'Do I care about iLife? DO I care about the weight of my laptop?'. To be honest, everyone cares about the weight off their laptop. I think that's why Apple's very first portable computer didn't sell. And iLife, I use it every now and then. it may not be groundbreaking, but at least it works and makes it easy to get your movies from any digital camera to your PC without having to scroll through ninehundred drivers and seventy applications before I have my movie burned on DVD. Just two applications, one to cut it, one to write it. These are just a few things that Windows doesn't really make as easy and that Apple - at least - markets for the value they have. And they're free. No-one can complain about a free application, now can they?

 

Oh, and MacOS X sells one edition against Windows that sells six. One edition with all the features. One. Not two like XP or six like vista, but one. To use Steve Jobs' words: X Starter Edition: $99. 'Mac OS X Home Basic edition: $99. Mac OS X Home Premium Edition: $99. MacOS X Business Edition: $99. macOS X Enterprise Edition: $99. MacOS X Ultimate Edition: $99. Sounds like a fair deal, no? And I'm not counting the server editions just yet, pal.

 

You're totally off track and just searching to offend people, Sanchez. At least use viable arguments to prove yourself and not just questions to answer questions.

[motion]

Wrong Wrong Wrong wrong.

Media Player Classic is the best video player on windows. It really is. VLC would be a decent contender but it can't do subtitles at all, it completely ignores formatting and doesn't knock out the notes subbers insert using {} tags. Otherwise they're pretty much the same.

 

"It isn't usable" This is a very vague statement but if you're talking about GUI's, well let's take a look.

Windows media player 6.4

Media Player Classic

 

IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME. It couldn't possibly be any simpler. If you're your average joe you won't even need to look any deeper into the settings, as MPC will get right to the job at hand. As far as I remember, The old windows media player was useless and I would curse every time it opened itself because the streaming never worked and at that period videos on the web were a total mess.

 

"Maximing the window screws up the video,"

No it doesn't, and if it did then you just need to familiarise yourself with the

Right Click > Video Frame menu Which actually gives you a wide range of aspect ratio's to choose from. At least I assume that's your problem with it, and I can't think of any others you might have.

 

"and its far too bloated."

What? Seriously I'm doubting you've even used Media Player Classic here. You realise it's a 4MB standalone exe, right? By comparison VLC's files are 8MB. I don't understand how it could be any trimmer without sacrificing valuable options. I'm looking through all the options right now and I don't see anything that says to me "This doesn't belong in a media player"

 

 

Mate, I've used original media player for many many years. Using media player classic for a week was horrible. I don't like it, alright?

 

Yes it may play hundreds of codecs and video files, fine.

 

I find it harder and more complicated to use. Original media player was simple, straightforward, loaded up quickly and played the files I wanted it to play.

 

And yes classic screws up the quality of the video when I maximise it, I've got one monitor using original, one monitor using classic and I can tell the difference between the two, both playing the same thing.

[KKOB]

Jasper argued my points very well, and added a couple more of his own.

 

The first thing you quoted me on saying was in reference to the 4 or so different versions of Vista and then to the 64-bit variations, and then if you do want to run say home premium on a lower end PC you may have to take off the aero glass thing, essentially removing, what i see as, a key part of the reason to upgrade from XP.

 

This results in users having different experiences of the OS. Where as OS X is the same experience for all users, if you meet the minimum specs.

 

So you get everything at advertised, without having to pay more.

 

iLife is great for the home user, a place to organise your photos, improve them, get rid of red eye, upload onto the internet, send off for prints etc, edit your home movies and burn them to DVD with your photo slide shows for your distant relatives, muck about making music and make a basic, attractive webpage all very easily. I think these are things that lots of normal users like to do, and can in a very easy way with iLife. This is why i feel it adds a lot of value to a new mac purchase.

 

And one thing i adore about OS X is that you pick it up so fast, but there is sooooo much depth there if you dig a bit deeper. But your not forced to learn everything to get what you want done like you do on windows, everything is usually in a place that makes sense. When i first got my Mac i loved that i was struggling to find my MAC address but it's in a blindingly obvious place just i was used to windows hiding this info.

 

These are reasons why i feel that a mac is worth more than say the same spec'd PC.

 

Also the Genius Bar if you live near a Apple Store is priceless, and free