I'm aware of TCO...but in this case she was asking for a 350 dollar choice and the only one she got from the mac fan crowd was 1000 to 1800. Truly, there are cases when a mac is NOT the choice, and cases where a mac is the choice. It's just that some here think mac is the only choice no matter what the cost or need.
An imac with THREE internal HD's? How does HP limit the size of a USB drive? That makes no sense. What compaq was this that was built in 2007 that has an internal drive limit of 80 gigs? I'd like to know just so I stay away from that one... On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:29 AM, b_s-wilk <b1sun...@yahoo.es> wrote: > You'll never be a good MFB if you start worrying about cost. Being a good >> MFB is like joining scientology, you never worry about the high price of >> being pure. As expressed in another thread, the very idea of going into a >> computer store with a budget is not towing the line for Steve Jobs. Think >> Steve, Think Different...Think Pure. >> > > Not so. The reality is exactly the opposite. Mac users are extremely aware > of cost especially TCO. > > In January, I replaced my 2000 PowerMac G4 with a new iMac; it had a 1.6GHz > processor, 3 internal HD, DVD burner, AGP video card, 3 PCI slots, filled, > 2GB RAM. In the same time we replaced 3 PCs because they couldn't be updated > any more. I called HP to find out what's the maximum size of HD in an HP > notebook [2008] and a Compaq notebook [2007]. HP limit is 250GB, Compaq is > 80GB. I can put a 500GB drive in the MacBook, with no limit for external > drive except price. Limit for HP external drive [USB only] is 500GB. > > I'll be "recycling" the 1.6GHz processor from the G4, installing it into a > Quicksilver G4. My PM 7600 still runs and is used for audio editing. The Mac > SE still works, but isn't much good for anything, except curiosity. > > In the long run, Macs are much cheaper than Windows PCs. They're built to > last, built to be upgraded over a long time, and the software is written to > last longer, too. AppleWorks, discontinued in 2003, still runs fine on my > iMac in Leopard. I finally broke down and upgraded Photoshop from v.7 to a > newer version, only because it's too old to work in 10.5.6. > > If you only look at the initial cost, Macs may appear to be more expensive, > while in reality, the Macs are much less expensive in the long run for the > average user. Those who build their own PC boxes can take advantage of > multiple choices, multiple upgrades, but rarely does the general consumer do > this. > > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
