Mac or PC? Forum

[ResolutePear]

Regarding the "coolness" factor of Macs - I admit, they are sleeker and do probably look "cooler" than pcs. People probably associate you with graphic design or something artsy fartsy if you use one. But is the coolness factor worth the cost? Not if you are a liberal arts major law student who doesn't really use computers for anything beyond taking notes and surfing the net. And your firm or government employer won't be using Macs, either.

Is eating out for lunch 1 extra time a week for a year worth it if you are a liberal arts major law student? What about going out and drinking a couple extra times a month for a year?

Students spend plenty of money on stuff they don't technically need and if someone chooses to spend $500 over 3 years for a laptop they prefer and another chooses to spend that money on the equivalent amount of beer over 3 years, who am I to say that one worse than the other?

Someone is asking for advice in this thread, and people are providing it. I don't really care one way or the other. If you want me to elaborate, I can see how a rational consumer would value their utility from eating out (good, tasty food/social aspect) and drinking at or higher than the amount they pay, but I don't see how a mac user gets enough utility from using a mac when they are "low-end" users who don't get to use their computer to its full capacity anyway. They pretty much just use similar software as cheap pc users do in law school and the software functions just as well in both the mac and pc. Unless they derive a large amount of utility from using a "pretty" machine on a daily basis, it's hard for me to perceive how they can get the utility worth 1k when they are incapable of using a mac to its full potential in order to make it really worth the extra money. But who knows, maybe there are computer illiterate people out there who derive utility from using a prettier machine and value their utility at >1000. (In other words, "irrational" consumers haha).

So, let me ask you a question.

Given the choice between a Rolex Submariner, and say... an Orient Mako, which one would you take? They both are built solely to tell time. One costs ~5,000USD. The latter costs ~100USD.

Very irrational stuff, these watches are.

[cornellbeez]

Regarding the "coolness" factor of Macs - I admit, they are sleeker and do probably look "cooler" than pcs. People probably associate you with graphic design or something artsy fartsy if you use one. But is the coolness factor worth the cost? Not if you are a liberal arts major law student who doesn't really use computers for anything beyond taking notes and surfing the net. And your firm or government employer won't be using Macs, either.

Is eating out for lunch 1 extra time a week for a year worth it if you are a liberal arts major law student? What about going out and drinking a couple extra times a month for a year?

Students spend plenty of money on stuff they don't technically need and if someone chooses to spend $500 over 3 years for a laptop they prefer and another chooses to spend that money on the equivalent amount of beer over 3 years, who am I to say that one worse than the other?

Someone is asking for advice in this thread, and people are providing it. I don't really care one way or the other. If you want me to elaborate, I can see how a rational consumer would value their utility from eating out (good, tasty food/social aspect) and drinking at or higher than the amount they pay, but I don't see how a mac user gets enough utility from using a mac when they are "low-end" users who don't get to use their computer to its full capacity anyway. They pretty much just use similar software as cheap pc users do in law school and the software functions just as well in both the mac and pc. Unless they derive a large amount of utility from using a "pretty" machine on a daily basis, it's hard for me to perceive how they can get the utility worth 1k when they are incapable of using a mac to its full potential in order to make it really worth the extra money. But who knows, maybe there are computer illiterate people out there who derive utility from using a prettier machine and value their utility at >1000. (In other words, "irrational" consumers haha).

So, let me ask you a question.

Given the choice between a Rolex Submariner, and say... an Orient Mako, which one would you take? They both are built solely to tell time. One costs ~5,000USD. The latter costs ~100USD.

Very irrational stuff, these watches are.

Are you suggesting that people pay a premium for the Mac name? I dunno if you are, but they probably do...I don't wear watches...but if I were given a gift, Rolex. If I had to pay for it, Orient. This is because I would sell the Rolex for the 5k and keep the cash. If I were buying a watch, I would assume that I needed one and that I therefore wouldn't resell it.

Just an aside - the resale value of computers is shit, like cars. Another reason to buy a cheaper pc. There's really no "investment" value, unlike with a Rolex.

[bk1]

Are you suggesting that people pay a premium for the Mac name? I dunno if you are, but they probably do...I don't wear watches...but if I were given a gift, Rolex. If I had to pay for it, Orient. This is because I would resell the Rolex for the 5k and keep the cash. If I were buying a watch, I would assume that I needed one and that I therefore wouldn't resell it.

Just an aside - the resale value of computers is shit, like cars. Another reason to buy a cheaper pc. There's really no "investment" value, unlike with a Rolex.

But yeah, outside of the rational world of economics, it really makes you wonder - just look at the value of diamonds and other things people value. It's like we still value certain items at pre-currency standards.

He's saying that you aren't paying for more utility with a Mac, you're paying for aesthetics. Functionally, paintings/pictures have zero functional utility, yet we still buy those things. A rational consumer can still buy a Mac if Mac design aesthetics are worth the cost difference to that person.

My point is that you can't just ignore aesthetics when it comes to computers and then care about them when it comes to something like clothing or furniture. If you are going to take a hard line with aesthetics being useless in regards to computers then your clothing better be from Walmart and your furniture better be made up of cardboard boxes.

[cornellbeez]

Are you suggesting that people pay a premium for the Mac name? I dunno if you are, but they probably do...I don't wear watches...but if I were given a gift, Rolex. If I had to pay for it, Orient. This is because I would resell the Rolex for the 5k and keep the cash. If I were buying a watch, I would assume that I needed one and that I therefore wouldn't resell it.

Just an aside - the resale value of computers is shit, like cars. Another reason to buy a cheaper pc. There's really no "investment" value, unlike with a Rolex.

But yeah, outside of the rational world of economics, it really makes you wonder - just look at the value of diamonds and other things people value. It's like we still value certain items at pre-currency standards.

He's saying that you aren't paying for more utility with a Mac, you're paying for aesthetics. Functionally, paintings/pictures have zero functional utility, yet we still buy those things. A rational consumer can still buy a Mac if Mac design aesthetics are worth the cost difference to that person.

My point is that you can't just ignore aesthetics when it comes to computers and then care about them when it comes to something like clothing or furniture. If you are going to take a hard line with aesthetics being useless in regards to computers then your clothing better be from Walmart and your furniture better be made up of cardboard boxes.

I think you're misinterpreting utility. Utility = happiness. In behavioral economics, utility = fn(aesthetics) + fn(x) + fn(y) .... whatever you want your eqn to capture. I mention deriving utility because some people may derive utility from using a "prettier" computer. Utility = fn(aesthetics). Derive that function to get the utility you "derive" from using a prettier computer. I argued that some people may be paying for more utility because they "derive" utility from fcn(aesthetics), which more or less means that people are paying for more utility. (In this context, I am using "derive" in the literal mathematical sense as well.) My main argument was that only irrational consumers would think that the utility they derive from using a prettier mac was worth the additional 1K they spend, assuming that they are low-end users.

[bk1]

I think you're misinterpreting utility. Utility = happiness. In behavioral economics, utility = fn(aesthetics) + fn(x) + fn(y) .... whatever you want your eqn to capture. I mention deriving utility because some people may derive utility from using a "prettier" computer. Utility = fn(aesthetics). Derive that function to get the utility you "derive" from using a prettier computer. I argued that some people may be paying for more utility by paying for aesthetics.

You specifically said:

I don't see how a mac user gets enough utility from using a mac when they are "low-end" users who don't get to use their computer to its full capacity anyway.

When it is something you are going to be using everyday for years, it is pretty easy to argue that someone who genuinely prefers Mac aesthetics can get $500 worth of utility out of it over the lifespan of the computer.

[ResolutePear]

Are you suggesting that people pay a premium for the Mac name? I dunno if you are, but they probably do...I don't wear watches...but if I were given a gift, Rolex. If I had to pay for it, Orient. This is because I would resell the Rolex for the 5k and keep the cash. If I were buying a watch, I would assume that I needed one and that I therefore wouldn't resell it.

Just an aside - the resale value of computers is shit, like cars. Another reason to buy a cheaper pc. There's really no "investment" value, unlike with a Rolex.

But yeah, outside of the rational world of economics, it really makes you wonder - just look at the value of diamonds and other things people value. It's like we still value certain items at pre-currency standards.

He's saying that you aren't paying for more utility with a Mac, you're paying for aesthetics. Functionally, paintings/pictures have zero functional utility, yet we still buy those things. A rational consumer can still buy a Mac if Mac design aesthetics are worth the cost difference to that person.

My point is that you can't just ignore aesthetics when it comes to computers and then care about them when it comes to something like clothing or furniture. If you are going to take a hard line with aesthetics being useless in regards to computers then your clothing better be from Walmart and your furniture better be made up of cardboard boxes.

I think you're misinterpreting utility. Utility = happiness. In behavioral economics, utility = fn(aesthetics) + fn(x) + fn(y) .... whatever you want your function to capture. I mention deriving utility because some people may derive utility from using a "prettier" computer. Utility = fn(aesthetics). Derive that function to get the utility you "derive" from using a prettier computer.

What are you talking about?

If you'd rather go with a Orient vs. a Rolex in the fashion stated, that doesn't make your argument valid. It just makes you seem cheap. Under the same logic, you'd rather go with a Goodwill suit vs. a new Armani, a Ford Fiesta versus a Porsche, etc. I usually don't defend macs, but I find this conversation interesting to the point that I must play devil's advocate.

[bk1]

I usually don't defend macs, but I find this conversation interesting to the point that I must play devil's advocate.

Same. Where I think that the problem lies is that people haven't accepted Apple as a luxury brand (due partly to the fact that it tries to sell itself is functionally better than its competitors and that its fanbase constantly goes "lolololoMAC>>>>>>>>PC>lolololol"). Louis Vuitton, Armani, Rolex, etc have all been accepted by the public as luxury brands so that if one buys a luxury item everyone else may not make the same decision but everyone else understands why they made the decision to buy a Rolex over a Seiko or Louis Vuitton over Coach. Apple on the other hand has not been widely accepted as a luxury item and so people have hard time seeing it as such when others buy it.

[cornellbeez]

I usually don't defend macs, but I find this conversation interesting to the point that I must play devil's advocate.

Same. Where I think that the problem lies is that people haven't accepted Apple as a luxury brand (due partly to the fact that it tries to sell itself is functionally better than its competitors and that its fanbase constantly goes "lolololoMAC>>>>>>>>PC>lolololol"). Louis Vuitton, Armani, Rolex, etc have all been accepted by the public as luxury brands so that if one buys a luxury item everyone else may not make the same decision but everyone else understands why they made the decision to buy a Rolex over a Seiko or Louis Vuitton over Coach. Apple on the other hand has not been widely accepted as a luxury item and so people have hard time seeing it as such when others buy it.

Except that the resale value of LV suits (in good condition) or Rolexes or other luxury items is >>>>>>>>>>>> resale value of Macs. Computers are just like cars - the market develops too quickly for it to retain value. This is unlike watches, or suits, or other goods, where advancements have pretty much stayed constant. So maybe people who buy other luxury items are actually rational investors, too, not just irrational consumers who like using something pretty.

[FiveSermon]

I usually don't defend macs, but I find this conversation interesting to the point that I must play devil's advocate.

Same. Where I think that the problem lies is that people haven't accepted Apple as a luxury brand (due partly to the fact that it tries to sell itself is functionally better than its competitors and that its fanbase constantly goes "lolololoMAC>>>>>>>>PC>lolololol"). Louis Vuitton, Armani, Rolex, etc have all been accepted by the public as luxury brands so that if one buys a luxury item everyone else may not make the same decision but everyone else understands why they made the decision to buy a Rolex over a Seiko or Louis Vuitton over Coach. Apple on the other hand has not been widely accepted as a luxury item and so people have hard time seeing it as such when others buy it.

It's probably laptops as a whole. When people think of luxury laptops they think high performance/high specs. Macs however, you get more aesthetics for your $ compared to actual performance/specs.

[ResolutePear]

I usually don't defend macs, but I find this conversation interesting to the point that I must play devil's advocate.

Same. Where I think that the problem lies is that people haven't accepted Apple as a luxury brand (due partly to the fact that it tries to sell itself is functionally better than its competitors and that its fanbase constantly goes "lolololoMAC>>>>>>>>PC>lolololol"). Louis Vuitton, Armani, Rolex, etc have all been accepted by the public as luxury brands so that if one buys a luxury item everyone else may not make the same decision but everyone else understands why they made the decision to buy a Rolex over a Seiko or Louis Vuitton over Coach. Apple on the other hand has not been widely accepted as a luxury item and so people have hard time seeing it as such when others buy it.

Except that the resale value of LV suits (in good condition) or Rolexes or other luxury items is >>>>>>>>>>>> resale value of Macs. Computers are just like cars - the market develops too quickly for it to retain value. This is unlike watches, or suits, or other goods, where advancements have pretty much stayed constant. So maybe people who buy other luxury items are actually rational investors, too, not just irrational consumers who like using something pretty.

Lol...

You miss the point of luxury items. If you're buying them for... what? It's not investment because those items go down.

You should stop talking because you keep outting various aspects of yourself:

There's always a new model Rolex, there's always a new suit. It's called fashion. People buying those items want the latest and greatest. There's advancements everywhere. Rolex comes up with better movements/designs. Suits come up with better fabric composites. Just about anything has advancements.

You're reasoning makes no sense, and the more you try to grasp straws, the more your argument doesn't hold.

[bk1]

Except that the resale value of LV suits (in good condition) or Rolexes or other luxury items is >>>>>>>>>>>> resale value of Macs. Computers are just like cars - the market develops too quickly for it to retain value. This is unlike watches, or suits, or other goods, where advancements have pretty much stayed constant. So maybe people who buy other luxury items are actually rational investors, too, not just irrational consumers who like using something pretty.

Are you really trying to argue that people who buy these items do so because of resale value? I doubt that even you don't see the implausibility there (especially in regards to clothes).

So computers are like cars. Then people shouldn't be buying Audi/Acura/Lexus (I'm specifically not going into super high end) over Ford/Honda/Toyota by your logic?

[cornellbeez]

Except that the resale value of LV suits (in good condition) or Rolexes or other luxury items is >>>>>>>>>>>> resale value of Macs. Computers are just like cars - the market develops too quickly for it to retain value. This is unlike watches, or suits, or other goods, where advancements have pretty much stayed constant. So maybe people who buy other luxury items are actually rational investors, too, not just irrational consumers who like using something pretty.

Are you really trying to argue that people who buy these items do so because of resale value? I doubt that even you don't see the implausibility there (especially in regards to clothes).

So computers are like cars. Then people shouldn't be buying Audi/Acura/Lexus (I'm specifically not going into super high end) over Ford/Honda/Toyota by your logic?

No, not the sole reason, but maybe that's one reason. There is, after all, a market for vintage Rolexes. Manolo Blahniks from past seasons still have high resale values. I'm saying there aren't as many developments in other industries that would affect resale value as much as they do in technological industries, where the value is pretty much wiped out after 1-2 years.

Computers are like cars in that they lose their resale value quickly, and at a higher rate than other goods. However, there are other factors to consider with cars - like safety, how well they run, maintenance, etc. Some more expensive cars have higher ratings w/r/t to these aspects, so I can see why people would prefer to buy more expensive cars over cheaper ones.

[ResolutePear]

No, not the sole reason, but maybe that's one reason. There is, after all, a market for vintage Rolexes. Manolo Blahniks from past seasons still have high resale values. I'm saying there aren't as many developments in other industries that would affect resale value as much as they do in technological industries, where the value is pretty much wiped out after 1-2 years.

Computers are like cars in that they lose their resale value quickly, and at a higher rate than other goods. However, there are other factors to consider with cars - like safety, how well they run, maintenance, etc. Some more expensive cars have higher ratings w/r/t to these aspects, so I can see why people would prefer to buy more expensive cars over cheaper ones.

There are markets for vintage cars and electronics.

Do you really intend to keep any computer past 3 years and complain about it being outdated and useless? No.

It's a moot point. Give it up.

[haus]

PC. Cheaper (you can get a decent one for 1/3 of the price of a mac), more compatible with exam-taking software, and imo, easier to use. And fwiw, computer engineers use PCs, not macs. (Most of the engineers seem to invest in Sony Vaios, which are also expensive, but they need high-end pcs for work/gaming.) If you just need it for school, go with low-end, but still high quality, pcs.

Check out consumer reports if you are considering buying a pc though. That site helped me select a quality laptop for roughly 500 bucks. (I'm not a gamer so I didn't need a high-end Vaio.)

Plus, if you tend to download software online (cough), you're more likely to find software for pcs, not macs, and it will save you a ton of moolah. You can get a lot more free stuff online with a pc.

Also, I don't really get why people think Macs are more user-friendly...?

You can by a computer for 33% of the price of a Mac laptop, but it will likely not be a very good machine.

I assume that you are referring to pirated software. Much of the pirated software has been compromised to act as a Trojan, but if your idea of a good idea is to rip of those who make software for a living, I am not really that sad that your box is likely owned six ways from Sunday. When it comes to inexpensive software from small/independent shops there are is a strong eco system for the Mac.

This is by far the most retarded anybody has said on this forum this weekend.

Small/independent shops? They would be using a POS system based on Linux if they knew what they were doing.

Pirating is pirating, but there are other ways to get software for free anyways. Last time I checked, 2,000USD for a WASP/MAC license isn't "cheap," nor is anything from Adobe, FCP.. hell, Textmate - a goddamn text editor costs 40USD!

You're just as likely to get a "trojan" from other sources, Mac or Windows. So it's a moot point.

Pear,

The point is being that being cheap can have its own cost.

The cost of entry as stated above is well below $2k, one could get started for less then half of that (my school currently has three models available at under 1k), but of course you are not interested in reality so do not let little things like facts bother you.

Statistically, one is far more likely to get a Trojan a Windows box then on a Mac, that is simply how things are now. This is not to say that Mac's are somehow immune to such problems, but poor behavior, such as downloading software from unverified sites, especially for things such as stolen software greatly increase your chances of bad things happening.

Now despite the fact that we are only talking about a few hundred dollars difference between comparable systems (of that much), feel free to go ahead and make up whatever supporting nonsense to support your position.

Oh and when it comes to watches, I chose a Seiko over the Oriental, primarily because on the models that I had a chance to review the fit and finish was better on the Seiko diver (plus I preferred the feel of ratcheting bezel on the Seiko) then the Oriental, although the band looked nicer on the Oriental, I discounted this because of the swap out with a NATO band was part of the plan from the get-go. Sure the Seiko cost me ~$20 more, but it is worth it to me to have the one that I preferred.

When one takes into consideration the resale value of a Mac vice that of a PC laptop, the price difference is much more akin to that of a Oriental/Seiko then that of a Oriental/Rolex.

By the way TextMate is a very nice editor, but for those not in need of quite so many bell and whittles Smultron (for $5) or TextWrangler (free) are good launch off points. Adobe... I am a computer geek, not a visual creative type, having never used their software other than to set it up for others, I have no recommendations.

[bk1]

Pear,

The point is being that being cheap can have its own cost.

The cost of entry as stated above is well below $2k, one could get started for less then half of that (my school currently has three models available at under 1k), but of course you are not interested in reality so do not let little things like facts bother you.

Statistically, one is far more likely to get a Trojan a Windows box then on a Mac, that is simply how things are now. This is not to say that Mac's are somehow immune to such problems, but poor behavior, such as downloading software from unverified sites, especially for things such as stolen software greatly increase your chances of bad things happening.

Now despite the fact that we are only talking about a few hundred dollars difference between comparable systems (of that much), feel free to go ahead and make up whatever supporting nonsense to support your position.

Oh and when it comes to watches, I chose a Seiko over the Oriental, primarily because on the models that I had a chance to review the fit and finish was better on the Seiko diver (plus I preferred the feel of ratcheting bezel on the Seiko) then the Oriental, although the band looked nicer on the Oriental, I discounted this because of the swap out with a NATO band was part of the plan from the get-go. Sure the Seiko cost me ~$20 more, but it is worth it to me to have the one that I preferred.

When one takes into consideration the resale value of a Mac vice that of a PC laptop, the price difference is much more akin to that of a Oriental/Seiko then that of a Oriental/Rolex.

By the way TextMate is a very nice editor, but for those not in need of quite so many bell and whittles Smultron (for $5) or TextWrangler (free) are good launch off points. Adobe... I am a computer geek, not a visual creative type, having never used their software other than to set it up for others, I have no recommendations.

Do Macs have benefits over PCs? Of course they do, but if you're trying to compare them dollar for dollar a Mac will not come out ahead (and PCs have benefits over Macs, cost being one of them). Also, 500-700 machines that are comparable to 900-1200 Macs aren't necessarily low quality and if bought from a reliable brand are just as well made and durable if not more so.

Statistically, one is far more likely to get a Trojan a Windows box then on a Mac, that is simply how things are now. This is not to say that Mac's are somehow immune to such problems, but poor behavior, such as downloading software from unverified sites, especially for things such as stolen software greatly increase your chances of bad things happening.

C'mon, let's actually set the record straight. OS X and Windows are equally likely to get a virus/trojan/etc. However, fewer of these programs run on OS X because virus programmers don't want to waste their time programming something that doesn't work on the majority of machines. This is security through obscurity and while many people say it is irrelevant, I actually will give you that this matters to the end user. It doesn't matter why their machine is affected by less viruses, just that it is. But the bottom line is that the difference isn't significant if you keep up to date antivirus/spyware on your PC (which is easy since they all autoupdate anyways and you can get decent ones like Avast! for free). Maybe if you're the kind of person who is a bull in a china closet on the internet and clicks every porn link/torrent they get their hands on then OS X might actually be beneficial to you, but I think these kinds of people are going to get a virus anyways whether they use OS X or Windows.

[Naked Dude]

I may or may not get a MacBook Pro, but I do plan on getting a non-shitty laptop. Whether or not I get an Apple product, I will be getting a laptop with a metal chassis and a keyboard that I like. Someone earlier mentioned they cannot stand offcenter keyboards. I agree. They are a dealbreaker. Like this


Note the row on the right, it shifts all of the keyboard to the left. That's just poor keyboard design. Sloppy, sloppy designing. I'm not saying good, centered keyboards are Mac only (Thinkpads have excellent keyboards). But a lot of PCs I would otherwise purchase have atrocious, dealbreaking keyboards. That eliminated the Toshiba Satellite and Portege, as well as a Lenovo Ideapad I wanted from the running for my next laptop. It's a shame, but keyboard design is important. Not aesthetically, but ergonomically.

[jarofsoup]

It is personal preference. I have been using Mac since my freshman year of undergrad and I have been very happy with the computers performance. Just got a new computer for law school with a I5 intel processor and it is a very solid machine.

My parents have bought Dells and will never buy one again. The company scammed them out of $200 and refused to correct it.

This was the deal. Parent wants to extend warranty for two years. Parents pay the extension price. Dell extends it for two weeks for over $200. Dell acknowledges it made an error but no one can reverse it.

If you google Dell there are a ton of stories like this.

[Naked Dude]

I would never get a Dell unless I absolutely had to. They are the WalMart of PCs, and give PCs in general a bad name.

[DeeCee]

It is personal preference. I have been using Mac since my freshman year of undergrad and I have been very happy with the computers performance. Just got a new computer for law school with a I5 intel processor and it is a very solid machine.

My parents have bought Dells and will never buy one again. The company scammed them out of $200 and refused to correct it.

This was the deal. Parent wants to extend warranty for two years. Parents pay the extension price. Dell extends it for two weeks for over $200. Dell acknowledges it made an error but no one can reverse it.

If you google Dell there are a ton of stories like this.

I used to only buy Dell, but because of their shoddy customer service and crappy designs in recent years, me and my SO will no longer purchase Dell. But I will still never buy a Mac, I have many more options with a PC, and my SO can fix them (hardware and software) so I don't have to take mine anywhere when it breaks.

[bk1]

If you google Dell there are a ton of stories like this.

If you google any customer service you will find horror stories. It's customer service, it's awful everywhere.

While some are better than others, there will always be horror stories, especially when you are dealing with the volume of calls that they do. Plus the people who have bad experiences are the most vocal.

It surprises me that your parents couldn't get their shit corrected. They probably weren't bitching hard enough. Treat customer service reps like children and, at least in my experience, you will get your way quicker and more often.

[Naked Dude]

AppleCare is about as convenient as it gets, but it's a pain in the ass if you don't live near an Apple Store. Most people do, but I don't go to college in a large city...

[bk1]

AppleCare is about as convenient as it gets, but it's a pain in the ass if you don't live near an Apple Store. Most people do, but I don't go to college in a large city...

Is AppleCare really that much more convenient than other manufacturers' warranties? ASUS's warranty is free repair for 2 years and pays for FedEx shipping both ways for 2 years (they email you an RMA that you then have to take into a FedEx Office store).

[Naked Dude]

AppleCare is about as convenient as it gets, but it's a pain in the ass if you don't live near an Apple Store. Most people do, but I don't go to college in a large city...

Is AppleCare really that much more convenient than other manufacturers' warranties? ASUS's warranty is free repair for 2 years and pays for FedEx shipping both ways for 2 years (they email you an RMA that you then have to take into a FedEx Office store).

I wasn't really trying to claim it was better--there might be better, but I have no complaints about the quality of it. Apple is automatic one year warranty, and you can purchase an additional two years of coverage (which everyone does unless they're stupid). I have a friend who goes to college with me and Apple paid for her shipping when her computer broke under the warranty. It may not be earth shattering as fanboys would have you believe, but it's at least as good as the better PC warranties.

[notanumber]

I'll not get into the whole mac/pc debate except to say that it probably makes the most sense just to buy a new computer with whatever OS you're currently using so you don't have to relearn shit.

I will say that applecare has consistently provided me with amazing service - I had a logicboard give out on my macbook pro after two and a half years of use. Instead of replacing the part, Apple just decided to give me a brand new current-gen macbook pro.

[bk1]

I wasn't really trying to claim it was better--there might be better, but I have no complaints about the quality of it. Apple is automatic one year warranty, and you can purchase an additional two years of coverage (which everyone does unless they're stupid). I have a friend who goes to college with me and Apple paid for her shipping when her computer broke under the warranty. It may not be earth shattering as fanboys would have you believe, but it's at least as good as the better PC warranties.

Purchasing 2 more years of coverage is not necessarily actually cost effective (I'd actually bet on average the consumer is losing money).

So AppleCare is just as good as something like SquareTrade or the warranty from a reputable PC maker? Then it is even more annoying that people bring it up as if it were Apple's gift to mankind.