From the article -


Actually, that discussion goes back to the early 80's when people argued the various merits of the IBM PC (and Jr.) and the original Apple and Apple II computers. I believe that over this time, one could always build a PC that cost more than an Apple/Mac or Lisa (Ah, yes, Lisa, I remember her well), however, most of the time the PCs were less expensive.

It's only been recently that the Apple systems are closely price competitive with PCs, and then mostly only with the higher end brand name systems. I wonder how many of us on this board feel that either the Dell systems or the Sony's are price competitive with the other PCs in the industry, yet they are primarily what the author of the article uses for his comparisons.



You might be, in my opinion, if you didn't try so hard to do the exact opposite.

I recently priced a Mac Pro "system" (I may have went overboard / got carried away..... just a little....) $14,087.95

Well,

yeah - when you add the lighted mouse and keyboard it quickly adds up!

i think macs are more expensive then pc's because they actually are made to last longer im actually thinking about moving to a mac vista was the last straw with all those problems and incompatibilities with software and hardware

I no longer see a real need for a Mac since I started using Linux , but if I was to get a Mac and short of winning a lottery I would get a Mac-Mini as it would do everything I need, I only care about access to "teh interwebs" and e-mail
# 1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 1GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x512MB
# 80GB Serial ATA drive
# Combo Drive
all for $599.00

You get what you pay for to be honest. If you buy a high spec PC, you could well spend the same as a iMac, or any other Mac. The only difference is that you can buy a cheap PC for about £120 lol. It's all relative =] IMO anyway. =]