The cheapest Mac laptop is $1,000. The cheapest Mac desktop is $600. So you are ...

sukuriant · on Aug 7, 2012

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

vs

http://www.alienware.com/Landings/laptops.aspx

rimantas · on Aug 7, 2012

  > 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 · on Aug 7, 2012

Those 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.

pjmlp · on Aug 7, 2012

No, I mean that I can buy a PC that beats the top of line Mac products with double the RAM, a newer GPU with more video RAM, better processor, costing 1000€ less.

My Asus laptop costed 1000€ and beats the MacBook Pro 17" in the amount of juice I can extract from the hardware.