You would make a great fiction author, Joe. Apple Tax is a fact.

While I would agree with most of what you say here, a few points to add. Typing from my Vista laptop, makes me wish for my old XP back. It just too restictive and slow for me, guess some like it, but I hate it.

So the next laptop, thinking to get an Mac. Why, because I can have Mac OS/X on it and XP. You can't run OS/X on a PC Joe. And thats the big difference. On the cheap end, yes pc's are cheaper, but they also less powerful. This would be my way of running anything, and using my old copy of XP, and selling Vista on ebay for whatever I can get for it. I won't miss Vista, that is for sure.

Must be a slow news day.

@thinking to move:
Doesn't that show Apple's restrictiveness more than it does Microsoft's inability to make your Vista experience better?

I don't understand the issue. I have had a number of systems dating back to the Amiga 1000...back when a PC had 16 colors and no mouse. Switched to my first PC that sported a Pentium 60 and windows 3.1. Four years ago I purchased my first mac and I now have two...a mac book and a 24 inch iMac. Did I pay a premium...in a way. I gladly paid a premium so that I might enjoy the most stable and usable computer I've ever owned. I would pay an even larger premium...to not use windows. The ideal? OS X on any hardware source. But meanwhile....I've found my macs to be worth the cost. Why should you care what I'm willing to spend?

Joe;

It is definitely a slow day for you... Drivel really. Waste of time snivelling about it.

So what? Ferrari is more expensive than Ford. For some of us the cool design factor is, well, cool. OS X is Unix is stable is, well, NOT Windows. Also, Apple tends to use much better quality components. My PowerBook G3 ran 9 years without a hiccup. In my company I've never seen a Dell/Windows slag heap run more than 1.5 years without a major intervention from IT. Etc. etc. It's like the stupid argument, what's better -- cats or dogs, apples or oranges. Boring.

Aw, come on Joe!

You forgot the best part of the Apple Tax - the lack of opportunities!

Yeah, Apple gives you iLife. But on a Windows machine, the OEMs have gone out of their way to install as many useful, interesting and helpful applications as they possibly can.

OK, so they're all trials, and will shortly expire. But that's good too! It's all about opportunity (to buy the software after trialling it) and choice (or to easily uninstall it if you don't want it).

So not only does the Apple Tax cost you more in dollars, but it leaves you poorer in opportunity and choice too!

Very good response from everybody, I don't have anything else to add rather than.. "Get a life Joe, Get a Mac".

The critical points you fail to take into account in your comparison are:

1) quality of build
2) quality of components

I own a number of Windows machines and several Mac's and a few Linux boxes as well. The standard PC uses cheaper components such as motherboards and power supplies and memory than the Apple machines. Did you take into account the Mac Pro comes with an all aluminium chassis whith pluggable hard drives etc...

The quaility of the assembly for Apple is also heads and shoulders above the competition. If you want to do a better comparison try using premium components that you assemble yourself for a better comparison.

Even the Coaster is desperate for a Mac, must be that Acer Ferrari laptop given to him by Micro$oft for saying sweet things about the Borg, running Vista is not so great after all.

Desperate in Jamaica for a free Mac:

http://www.upstartblogger.com/free-iphone-number-two

"Andre Da Costa May 24th, 2008 at 12:53 am

Although I am hoping to win the MacBook Air because I am desparate for a new laptop, I have linked to Infinite Critique under my Favorite Spots subscribed to your Feed. Hey, iPhones are cool too."...........

Yep, and "Iphones are cool too," as Andrew blogs from his Mac.

I noticed that Microsoft wasn't too eager to talk about the Microsoft tax. You know, the price built into most OEM Windows PCs for Windows itself. The price that is almost impossible, short of going to court, to get refunded even if one refuses the Windows license. Add to that the fact all of the biggest PC sellers and all of the big box or office supply stores make it impossible to buy a PC without Windows preloaded. When you do find one that offers PCs without Windows, it is usually only a couple of models out of their entire lineup, and those usually with fewer hardware options than the same machine offered with Windows.

I've often wondered how that kind of anticompetitive bundling is legal, and I'm pretty sure that in some European countries (France for one), it isn't.

Not to mention the additional Microsoft tax due to having to purchase more powerful, more expensive hardware in order to get the same level of performance that a much less powerful, less expensive Linux box would provide.

Boy have you been tricked this time. When ever you buy a copy of Windows part of that money has to go to paying Apple patents for font rendering to screen.

Want to avoid paying any Apple Tax install Linux with its not patented font rendering.

Apple does charge more they never say they don't. Replacement terms with Apple are fare nicer than HP's. No invoice required Apple tracks when the machine was sold. Free OS upgrades for the life of the Machine. So when windows 7 gets released the Apple machine will still be able to run latest Apple OS yet HP will still be stuck with Windows Vista and you have to find the money to upgrade.

Funny someone how I don't think you are really paying more at all. Yes just paying for the next OS version in advance.

Interesting.

But, you are comparing a Mercedes-Benz to a Chevrolet.

I have a 2-year-old Compaq (HP) laptop, running XP (thank GOD!) But if I could afford a MAC desktop OR laptop, I'd be SO in.

In fact, I use Safari or Firefox rather than IE. Anything I can do to be "closer" to a MAC.

Oh, one more thing. Just look at the web banner on THIS very page, "Repair Windows Vista." Doesn't that kinda say it all?

Mac's are awesome, I guess! Just one thing though, you can't build them, only buy them. Maybe Mac users are technology challenged. I'll continue to roll my own.

If I were in Microsoft's position I would shut my hole as far as tax goes. Unfortunately many people don't realize that they are actually forced into paying a TAX when they buy their computer,no matter whether they need windows or not. At least when they go with one of the big names.
Tried to buy a Dell laptop - no intention of running windows whatsoever on it - but there is no refund for windows. Forget my business.
Tried the same with Lenovo - apparently they are required by their contract with Microsoft to sell windows with all their hardware. The representative was willing though to go as far as to give me a - I love that word - "Return Prevention Discount" of $100 if I don't want windows on it. Not too shabby - you might hear back from me.

When was the last time I bought a loaf of bread and the marmalade was already applied to it. Give me my choice of what OS I want to be running. Then you can start to slag off the competition.

@ Thomas M:

Try ZaReason:

http://www.zareason.com/shop/home.php

Good selection, good prices, and they come preloaded with Ubuntu by default. You can also have them test and/or preload another Linux distro when you order. Absolutely no Windows Tax!

I find Macs to be cheaper than Windows machines for a few reasons.

1. Maintainability - They rarely need to be maintained once the software is installed. I cannot remember the last time I had to fix one of the Macs. Obviously the Windows machines need a lot of attention. Windows is only cheaper if your time is free. You do not have to reinstall OSX every 18 months.

2. Crapware - Macs do not come preloaded will all sorts of trialware and crapware. They do not need expensive security software just to keep running. I do not have to go and buy another copy of OSX just so I can install a proper version because the Mac only came with a 'restore cd'.

3. Quality - Mac hardware is definitely better quality than their PC rivals. For this reason, I write them off over 5 years rather than 3 for my Windows PCs. This means that as far as my accounts go, Macs are actually way cheaper than PCs, even if the PC costs more initially. Even with upgrading OSX every 2 years, it is still much cheaper to run a Mac.

Why would you compare a MacBook with a solid aluminum enclosure to an HP one which probably is made of creaky plastic? That's like comparing a Porsche to a Yugo, but only measuring number of seats and gearstick length. I had an HP laptop for ages and the body gradually cracked apart as the plastic lost its flexibility. If it was a new MacBook it would not have done that.

Whoever sent that email must have been drunk at the time.

This summer I bought a brand new ThinkPad T61p and it came with XP preinstalled. Another option was Vista but there was no option of an empty laptop. I am a Linux user and I installed Ubuntu as soon as I downloaded the latest release. Now, I know that OEMs pay much less for the license, but in the end I paid for that XP and I didn't even use it except to download Ubuntu.
When Microsoft starts making their computers like Apple then they can preinstall whatever they want. Then the market will be truly open and they will have to compete with quality. Until then, Linux users will have to pay for something they have no use of, and that I would call a tax.

Am I mistaken, or is Microsoft comparing the price of a Mac Pro with 8 cores to the price of a HP computer with 4 cores?

And in other startling news, 8-cylinder engines cost more than 4-cylinder engines.

@slummo

When you say you build your own computers, do you design and fab the chips and motherboards yourself, and write the OS from scratch (not to mention the compiler)? If not, then you must be pretty technologically challenged as well, to let other people do all that work for you. ;-)

It's not even a question of technical capability. I can build my own PC if I need to, but when I want to roll out 30 or 100 or many more PCs at once, it's often much less hassle and a better use of my time to simply buy them pre-built and ready to go.

It would be nice to walk into Best Buy (or whatever your favorite brick and mortar store is) and buy a computer and get to select what OS you want on it. But of course it is fantasy land thinking.

One can however buy "white boxes" (with no OS) at computer refurb stores and also geeks.com...although they call it "rebranded" computers.

The other option is build your own PC or buy a half built computer and add the hard drive, ram and OS.

For a comparison on the Mac Pro to REALLY show the Apple tax, you should have upgraded it to either 4GB or 6GB direct from Apple. The tax on memory is really high, which is why I bought my extra memory from a 3rd party.

On the other hand, you don't wae Dell want to compare a Dell workstation configured as closely as possible to the Mac Pro, with dual Xeon quads, etc. When I did that last spring, the Dell was more expensive. (I didn't price monitors, since I already had a monitor).

The difference I see, that helps expose these price differences, is that Apple doesn't supply computers targetting certain markets. Such as high end computers without the server type components of the Pro like Xeons for those who don't want an all in one unit like the iMacs. And really low end systems, other than the Mini.

Where does all that Apple tax go? Well, some of it goes to supporting political activism. Apple made a contribution to the campaign against Proposition 8 in California. Fortunately, Proposition 8 passed, and Apple got egg on its face.

Whether or not you are for or against Proposition 8, however, you might feel uncomfortable when a tech company starts putting its money into funding "causes" that have nothing to do with its field of expertise. Hmmm... interesting...

There have been studies in the past that show that the total cost of ownership of Macs is less than that of Windows machines.
I have little doubt that it still holds true, given the costs of having someone come over to fix the PC, anti virus software, more repairs, lower longevity, higher OS upgrade costs, etc.
Right out of the box they are cheaper. In the long run, not so much.

@2charlie
Quote "There have been studies in the past that show that the total cost of ownership of Macs is less than that of Windows machines.
I have little doubt that it still holds true, given the costs of having someone come over to fix the PC, anti virus software, more repairs, lower longevity, higher OS upgrade costs, etc.
Right out of the box they are cheaper. In the long run, not so much."
-
A very fair comment IMO, whilst I would love to comment on my experience of MAC (since I bought one for the wife) I wont, since my experience is limited to a few minutes here and there on the system.
-
My wife is not a computer expert, nor has any wish to be, she uses her MAC to surf and all the other standard things you'd expect of a home PC. What I can say is she has yet to report any problems to me, and seems to treat the damn thing with more TLC than my pride and joy (that is my collection of retro hardware, of which she seems to have no regard of whatsoever)
-
In terms of cost, initial outlay more expensive than ANY alternative, in terms of after purchase grief - worth its weight in gold. I still wouldnt personally own one though and would rather go for a less fashionable Linux netbook.

The second sentence of the article, "Today, Microsoft told me that I'm paying an Apple Tax when buying Macs," told me everything I wanted to know about this bit of drivel. Never believe anything M$ has to say about the competition, period. After all, they did such a bang-up job with Vista that methinks they don't have too many stones to throw from that glass house of theirs. I'll take OS X and its lack of headaches over anything M$ puts out, including XP, any day of the week. Apple's tech supprt, should you ever need it, is top notch. Compare that to DHell, whose tech support agents are encouraged not to fix issues because that would cost DHell money (I used to work there and have many stories I could tell). I'll take the Apple: better hardware, better software, no annoyware, NO WINDOWS hassles, and no virus/spyware issues, thank you.

@2charles and Goblin:
"2charlie says:
There have been studies in the past that show that the total cost of ownership of Macs is less than that of Windows machines.
I have little doubt that it still holds true, given the costs of having someone come over to fix the PC, anti virus software, more repairs, lower longevity, higher OS upgrade costs, etc.
Right out of the box they are cheaper. In the long run, not so much."
----------------------------------------------------
I have come around to this conclusion too. Mac and especially Linux, are cheaper in the long run. Linux however, is mostly free, and can run on the same pc as windows, which makes it the best choice, cost wise.

Think of all the malware problems, updating, scanning, false positives, etc. And that is just for those with the knowledge to try to protect their systems. For the others, they would be better off with alternatives, either Linux or Mac.

And the others, I am talking about are these folks:

80 per cent of home PCs infected - survey
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/26/pc_petri_dish_city/

This is completely trying to miss leading article. Mac Pro has 2 quad core i.e 8 core Xeons

Two(i.e 2 of them) 2.8GHz Intel Quad Core Xeon processors and HP d1500t, which comes with a single 2.83GHz Intel Core 2 Quad processor.

Apple prices are not much different from Dell or HP. Do you research. There is no doubt that Windows PC are available for $400 which are very low configs. And almost all Mac configs equalents PCs are same or some cases cheapers.