everyone types what they think the pro's and con's of the 2 types of computers are.
Example of a good arguement:
I like PC's because you can customize them into decent gaming rigs with whatever odd computer parts you have lying around.
I don't like Mac's because for a PC and a Mac with similar specs is nearly twice as expensive.
Bad Arguement: I like Mac's because they're l33t /fanboy
and I hate PC's because they're spawns of Bill Gates and Bill Gates is the devil.
Spirited ^-^ but not a very convincing argument.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I like Macs because my Mac has fewer hardware issues and actually connects to wireless. I like Macs because lots of other Astronomers (including my boss) use them to run IRAF and other software on the built in unix, and support is a lot easier that way.
PCs have a lot more gaming software, but who cares because wasting my time on Hatrack for freee is so much more fun.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Nearly twice as expensive for a comparable Mac? Can you back that up?
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
PC's
Great for tinkering, gaming, up-to-prosumer-level editing/graphics, a variety of freeware software/plugins/etc.
Mac's
Great for graphics and audio applications. Fast boot-times. Dominating the film and sound recording industry AFAIK.
Cons of PCs
1. If you're an average user (read: vulnerable) virus/spyware can easily get on your system. But if Mac's were used most, the same situation would apply IMO. A symptom of being the most widely used OS I'm afraid.
2. Can become bloated. Not the best usage of RAM in my experience. Slow bootups.
Mac's Cons:
User's are just as evangelical. System still crashes for no reason. Few games. Right-click functions exist, but lack imo.
Overall: If everything boils down to "anything you can do I can do better"...Macs and PC's win and lose at the same time.'
It just depends on what you're planning to use your machine for. If you want to play games AND ___, go with a PC. If you want to ______ really well, go with a Mac.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Time for our first Official Hatrack Discussion.
What the heck have we been doing until now?
We've had this very conversation before. Many times. *yawn*
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Nearly twice as expensive for a comparable Mac? Can you back that up?
17" Macbook Pro - $2799.00 2.4 ghz core duo processor 2 GB RAM (DDR 667) 160 GB Hard Drive (5400 RPM SATA) 256 MB GeForce 8000 series video
Dell Inspiron 1720 - $1,744.00 17" Display 2.4 ghz core duo processor 2 GB RAM (DDR 667) 160 GB Hard Drive (5400 RPM SATA) 256 MB GeForce 8000 series video
...yep?
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Time for our first Official Hatrack Discussion.
What the heck have we been doing until now?
We've had this very conversation before. Many times. *yawn*
We have?
Blaynnnne. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
How about you do less dictating and more discussing yourself, Blayne?
First, don't presume this is the first Hatrack discussion on such subjects. Second, don't toss out strawmen (even if as counter-arguments) in the first post. Instead, give your own personal examples. Even better, give examples for both (good and bad for PCs, and good and bad for Macs).
I like the customizability and games availability for PCs. However, I often find the disparate custom UI for installing things (particularly hardware) to often be poor and confusing, and often times just plain broken.
I like Macs because I appreciate the eye-candy and more consistent UI, as well as the Unix-y guts (with all the well-known conventions that entails). I dislike Macs due to their price premium, and some specific UI choices.
-Bok
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
That works out to about 60 percent more expensive. While that's pretty significant, I don't think I'd call it "nearly twice as expensive."
My own completely subjective thoughts on the matter: I like PCs. I'm familiar with them and enjoy the flexibility and price. My Windows XP Pro system at home hangs a lot less frequently than my iMac at work (neither system really ever crashes). I've done a fair amount of layout work on both Macs and PCs, and I've never seen much advantage, if any, to doing it on a Mac.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
pc: games mac: graphic design/art
i find macs to be way more intuitive as far as operating goes. it has also been my experience that they crash less, get less viruses, and are cute.
in theory, i am fine with either, but in reality i never want to use a pc again.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Guys, I'm pretty sure Blayne was joking.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
All other things being equal, I'd say Macs win over Windows PCs in pretty much every way other than price (though some models have very competitive pricing).
Things start to get fuzzy when you talk about switching from one to the other: most computer users are so timid, uncurious, and afraid of change that the grass will never be greener on the other side, no matter what. If you haven't already gotten used to the quirks and general attitude of Windows, OS X is a lot less weird. Taking the time to understand why OS X is so different only makes it seem better designed.
Many of the most annoying differences between PCs and Macs stem from the fact that the platforms have developed similar solutions from completely different starting points.
OS X started as the unix-based, pervasively object-oriented NeXTStep operating system, which was toned down to be more familiar to the existing Mac and Windows markets. Things like 3-button mouse interaction and the advanced Dock features were cut, and the application menus were somewhat crippled for the sake of familiarity. However, the document and application oriented paradigms persisted.
Windows, on the other hand, has evolved gradually and inconsistently. Microsoft has done a spectacular job of retaining backwards compatibility, but at the cost of having an idiosyncratic environment. They have never been fully able to eat their own dog food, and that has set a bad example that third-party developers have followed. For example, none of the Office suites of the past decade have used the native widgets of the operating system: they draw their own buttons in their own style. This means that Office 97 on XP or Vista still looks like a Win95 app. Not only is this a horrible case of re-inventing the wheel, it has led to a complete lack of consistency in look and feel (enough that most windows users can't even discriminate between look and feel, and consequently will bash OS X for inconsistent looks when it has perfectly consistent feel.)
With that in mind, it seems to me that OS X users have no reasons to switch to Windows that don't stem from Microsoft's monopoly history. Windows users, on the other hand, can often get real technological and usability improvements if they invest the time and money to switch.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: That works out to about 60 percent more expensive. While that's pretty significant, I don't think I'd call it "nearly twice as expensive."
Dells are pretty pricy in terms of PCs though. I'm pretty sure a comparable HP or Toshiba machine would be considerably less expensive.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: How about you do less dictating and more discussing yourself, Blayne?
First, don't presume this is the first Hatrack discussion on such subjects. Second, don't toss out strawmen (even if as counter-arguments) in the first post. Instead, give your own personal examples. Even better, give examples for both (good and bad for PCs, and good and bad for Macs).
I like the customizability and games availability for PCs. However, I often find the disparate custom UI for installing things (particularly hardware) to often be poor and confusing, and often times just plain broken.
I like Macs because I appreciate the eye-candy and more consistent UI, as well as the Unix-y guts (with all the well-known conventions that entails). I dislike Macs due to their price premium, and some specific UI choices.
-Bok
Lawl, have you had your happy juice recently? By the looks of it I say not.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: How about you do less dictating and more discussing yourself, Blayne?
First, don't presume this is the first Hatrack discussion on such subjects. Second, don't toss out strawmen (even if as counter-arguments) in the first post. Instead, give your own personal examples. Even better, give examples for both (good and bad for PCs, and good and bad for Macs).
I like the customizability and games availability for PCs. However, I often find the disparate custom UI for installing things (particularly hardware) to often be poor and confusing, and often times just plain broken.
I like Macs because I appreciate the eye-candy and more consistent UI, as well as the Unix-y guts (with all the well-known conventions that entails). I dislike Macs due to their price premium, and some specific UI choices.
-Bok
Lawl, have you had your happy juice recently? By the looks of it I say not.
That's just stupid.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
People who frame this discussion as a battle are part of the problem, not the solution.
I've been trying to convince my girlfriend that using a mac isn't going to hurt her for about three years now. But all the hyperbole and overzealous bashing of one or the other just makes people more resistant to giving the other side a chance.
I have a mac and a PC at home and use a PC at work. I prefer the mac interface.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I have a Mac running OS X, PC running Windows and Ubuntu and a Mac running Debian.
I use all three for different things. I use Ubuntu as my primary for programming, document editing and all net stuff. I use my mac for media, music and movies. I use my windows boot for gaming. There's nothing wrong or evil about just using all the available operating systems only for what they are best for. It's not that hard either and these days doesn't really even require more than one computer: mac hardware triple booted. Perfect. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: How about you do less dictating and more discussing yourself, Blayne?
First, don't presume this is the first Hatrack discussion on such subjects. Second, don't toss out strawmen (even if as counter-arguments) in the first post. Instead, give your own personal examples. Even better, give examples for both (good and bad for PCs, and good and bad for Macs).
I like the customizability and games availability for PCs. However, I often find the disparate custom UI for installing things (particularly hardware) to often be poor and confusing, and often times just plain broken.
I like Macs because I appreciate the eye-candy and more consistent UI, as well as the Unix-y guts (with all the well-known conventions that entails). I dislike Macs due to their price premium, and some specific UI choices.
-Bok
Lawl, have you had your happy juice recently? By the looks of it I say not.
That's just stupid.
Explain to me how someone taking my obvious tongue in cheek phrases in a complete negative way and critizes me in also a completely way doesn't deserve a nice witty retort about how obviously he has had a bad day and simply taking it out on me. Obviously your idea of what is "stupid" clearly is lacking in this situation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Explain to me how someone taking my obvious tongue in cheek phrases in a complete negative way and critizes me in also a completely way doesn't deserve a nice witty retort about how obviously he has had a bad day and simply taking it out on me.
Explination #1 -- it was not obviously tongue in cheek.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Yeah Blayne. To be honest, it really wouldn't be all that hard to take all your "tongue in cheek" post absolutely seriously.
Also, you call that response witty? o_O
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Agreed, I'm personally heavily vested in Mac vs. PC issues, but I have no desire to participate in debates where acrimony and fanaticism are the main catalysts for discussion. Luckily for us the more erudite than average members of Hatrack are more interested in comparing the relative merits of the systems rather than giving in to Blayne's not-so-subtle, not-so-erudite desire for a verbal slugfest.
The fact is they're both good for different things, and the deciding factor in which is 'better,' is what you need it for.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Explain to me how someone taking my obvious tongue in cheek phrases in a complete negative way and critizes me in also a completely way doesn't deserve a nice witty retort about how obviously he has had a bad day and simply taking it out on me. Obviously your idea of what is "stupid" clearly is lacking in this situation.
1. I don't care if he deserves a retort. 2. Believe it or not, it may not have been personal. Hypersensitivity isn't a virtue.
I'm not playing this anymore. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I wasn't having a bad day. I was taking your first post at face-value (which should be considered something of a compliment, since many people often view your posts with their own pre-conceived notions of you), since you have posted stuff like this before, but actually have been serious.
Sorry I misconstrued your post, but my criticisms were fair and not personal, unless pointing on basic netiquette is a personal attack. They are rules everyone should follow.
-Bok
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Dude man, I even put in a smiley "^-^" it was obviously tongue in cheek.
Also Dante, explain how my first post in anyway encoruages fanatical verbal slugfest? I had explicitly stated that with a smiley that such arguements were not productive.
Seriously, when someone reads someone's posts online check for smilies, read it once or twice over again and see if possibly its meant to be taken seriously or if the author is trying to be funny.
Honestly some of you need to take a break.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:it was obviously tongue in cheek.
You can say it was obvious all you want, but if there were people who didn't pick up on it, it wasn't obvious.
Also, the emoticon you used is not one that is used on this board much at all. I know that I didn't notice it until you called attention to it. You might want to stick with the graemlin smileys.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That's not a smiley that I've ever seen. To me, that's reiterating what exactly is spirited (it's pointing to the prior point). And even if it was a smiley, the most I could figure out without your clarification was that you were being sarcastic when you said spirited, not that the whole post was a joke.
No biggie, and I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part, but I don't think the post is particularly well targeted for Hatrack (other forums, perhaps).
I still think had you followed with your own examples (whether jokes or not as was your intent), it would have cleared up much of the confusion.
-Bok
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I like apostrophes used correctly.
(I also like macs.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"Apostrophe's vs. Pluralizations"?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shoots Master Porteiro*
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
I love hatrack as an online forum, but I think the average quality of discussion has made quite a few of the users really stuck up about the way some people post.
Who cares of Blayne actually believed this was the first mac/pc discussion ever? I don't believe he did, but so WHAT if he did? And why is it a rule that an opening post for a discussion has to be researched and sourced?
That's ridiculous. This is a place for discussion, and sometimes people just want to open up a discussion.
Maybe Blayne's posts aren't as sophisticated as you would like. That is no reason to be so abrasive.
Don't kick someone off the swing swet just because they didn't put on their black robes and ascot before they came outside to play. When I first came to Hatrack, I posted some stupid things. You know what people did? They didn't post in my thread. Unless someone is saying something hatemonging and broadly offensive, what is the point, when your most effective action is inaction?
If you don't have anything nice to say, etc.
In these cases it is those that protest that come off sounding childish. That could be simply my own perception, but if them's the rules, then peace out.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: "Apostrophe's vs. Pluralizations"?
Actually, I don't think you have a leg to stand on... counting on the explinations.
( )
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Don't kick someone off the swing swet just because they didn't put on their black robes and ascot before they came outside to play.
Or because they don't have perfect spelling. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Heh, Davidson's law just perfected a triple somersault I think.
(And probably a quadruple because I'm sure there must be an error in this post too.)
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Exactly. And I'm leaving it! (You mean you didn't have swets where you grew up?)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
porc, I sympathize. I'm not out to get Blayne. Rather, I'm out to help him rehab his image here on Hatrack, based on some early faux pas. He has shown appreciation and positive feedback to getting some support in the past. If he doesn't want it any more, that's cool, I won't post anything.
I hope Blayne realizes that I thought I was being constructive in the vein of prior threads. (If not, I hope he gets the irony given my confusion of the intent of his first post here ).
-Bok
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Macs and PCs both suck.
Commodore Pet is where it's at. You don't have to buy esoteric media like discs and USB drives and whatnot . . . you can use the very same cassettes you use to record music off the radio and play in your Walkman! You don't have to buy a separate monitor: it's built in! No worrying about losing your keyboard: it's built in too! No confusing peripherals like laser printers, scanners, mice, video cards, coffee warmers, whatever. My Commodore Pet has never crashed once! Can you Mac and PC people say that? Also, no Commodore Pet has ever gotten a virus from the internet. They are absolutely spyware and malware proof as well. With my Commodore Pet, I can be sure it's absolutely impossible for my kids to access inappropriate websites or chat with creepy perverts!
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
And the graphics are way old skool!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
well with my friends we use ^-^ alot because its cuter. I'm sorry Bokomon for lashing out you since you were trying to be helpful but please, please please ask if I'm being joking.
Also I'ld think the sheer obviousness of the strawman arguement in a forum of generally erudite people, the presence of a smiley (albeit one none of you has ever seen), would have at least slightly pointed out that I'm being playful in the post.
I do want a serious discussion I've heard and considered most of the arguements already so I would rather have other people discuss it, and watch them discuss it and see if I learn anything new.
Also a friend of a friend was getting a new computer, the PC specs of it would have costed 350$, the Mac version on comparison was 1000$.
Obviously thats more then double and depending on the store it might be less, but looking around at futureshop I have seen some ridiculous prices for something that I could do better and cheaper on a PC.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That's the thing though, Blayne: withholding your opinion in a thread like this is a little unfair. Why should we bother, when you won't? You can still learn things even after given your opinion (opinions are allowed to change, after all), and it makes people feel more comfortable that they won't get nit-picked by the "Arbiter of the Thread".
Give a little to get a lot, I say.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are only a few macs that can be made to cost around $1000, the Macbook, the Mac Mini, and the iMac.
It is not possible to get a laptop feature-comparable to the macbook for less than half as much (even discounting things like the built in iSight).
It is not possible to get a computer feature-comparable to the iMac for less than half as much. The screen alone would be fairly expensive for the size (and it is not a low-quality LCD).
So what you must be talking about is the mini. The mini is not aimed at people looking for a cheap computer, it is aimed at people looking for a small computer. It uses laptop parts, and they are engineered into a very small form factor. This is more expensive. Was the computer your friend was buying anywhere near as small as the mini?
In other words, the Macs are not priced at anywhere near twice as much for a comparable machine. If you take a machine that Apple has made out of the same sort of parts, for the same sort of audience, it is only somewhat more expensive (and arguably not at all in some cases, such as the Macbook).
If you're going to try to knock apple's prices, try to approach things with at least a little thought.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I believe iMacs also use a lot of laptop components, which makes a direct comparison to desktop PCs rather difficult. The most even comparison I could think of was a PowerMac against a similar PC workstation. With a little customization of options to get them as comparable as possible, I was able to price a PowerMac at $4700 and a Dell at $3500.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, true; especially given that, the iMac price is pretty dang good.
Are the workstation prices with monitors?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Oops. I should've said Mac Pro, not PowerMac.
Yeah, I chose 20" flat panels. For the Mac Pro, I upgraded to a Quadro FX 4500 because it was the closest thing to the Dell's FX 3500. Of course, it's a better card, but I'm not sure how much it affected the total price.
Edit: I went back and double-checked the specs, and it looks like a comparable Dell would be $4200, not $3500. I must've missed something the first time. And that $500 difference could very well be the graphics card and other little things.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I haven't exactly done any research on this, but it seems to me to also depend on when you do the price comparison. It doesn't seem like Apple updates the products or price points as often as the PC manufacturers. So when a Mac line is updated, often times it seems like the prices are much better than a comparable PC, but the comparison eventually levels off, and then by the end of the Mac product cycle, the Macs are more expensive.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: People who frame this discussion as a battle are part of the problem, not the solution.
I've been trying to convince my girlfriend that using a mac isn't going to hurt her for about three years now. But all the hyperbole and overzealous bashing of one or the other just makes people more resistant to giving the other side a chance.
I have a mac and a PC at home and use a PC at work. I prefer the mac interface.
It's a fundamental worldview thing:
Coke is good; Pepsi is bad. (RC is ridiculous)
PCs are good (even when they're bad); Macs are bad (even when they're good). (Linux is alien, and therefore not even in the equation)
Betamax was bad (despite the better picture); VHS was good.
Hatrack forums are good; Ornery forums are bad.
The list goes on and on. As Elliot S! Maggin said on more than one occasion, "There's a right and a wrong in the universe, and the distinction isn't hard to make."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It will almost always be better to buy the equivalent Dell UltraSharp monitor instead of the Apple monitor (or a lesser quality one if that's okay). At least at one point they were using the same screen suppliers with the same quality cutoff, and they're very comparable, but the Dell monitor is cheaper (especially if you're a school with a big Dell deal) and has a better stand.
Looks like that knocks $200 off the Mac Pro comparison price (20" Cinema display is $599, 20" UltraSharp 2007WFP is $399. Monitors should still be included because other vendors will often include them with a system for cheaper, but there's no reason to assume someone buying a mac will buy a monitor from apple.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
On that note, there's no reason to assume someone buying a PC will expect it to come assembled, so all comparisons should be priced against purchasing comparable parts at the best possible prices.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's plenty of reason to expect someone buying a PC will expect it to come assembled. Notably, if you buy the parts, you aren't buying a PC, you're buying parts and making a PC, if we want to be pedantic.
If we want to be realistic, buying parts is not part of normal shopping for a computer, but possibly buying the monitor elsewhere is.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Meh, all you're doing when purchasing a PC is picking which parts come pre-installed. Most people are okay with their monitor, keyboard and mouse not coming pre-installed. I don't think it's unreasonable to move the line a little further back, especially since that's one of a PC's greatest strengths.
If we want to be realistic, most everyone I've ever seen buy a mac has also purchased a mac monitor. :shrug:
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
"Assembling a PC from pieces" is moving the line a LOT further back from "plugging in your monitor and peripherals."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets take a look at it from a standpoint of what people actually do:
Many people who can make their own PCs, buy, despite the sum of the prices of the parts almost certainly being lower than the price of the purchased computer. Either these people are on the whole very stupid about money, or they're acting intelligently or there's a significant disparity between the value of the purchased PC and the cost of the an assembled PC that is not captured in the prices of the parts.
One of my assumptions is that people are usually not that stupid, particularly when hundreds of dollars are in question. Do you think they are that stupid, or do you have another explanation?
But if you want to compare the systems under the assumption that people are already okay with their monitors (which I think is frequently not true, if someone's buying a workstation class machine), that's fine, it just moves the calculation more towards being in favor of macs.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Assembling a computer yourself in Canada ordering online will save you up on average 500$ in parts and labour compared to buying from Futureshop.
My friend whose dad assembles high end industrial computers for his company (and sells some on the side), for 2000$ he could assemble a beast of a machine while the equivilent machine in Futureshop or BestBuy would be 3000-3500$.
Everyone of my class mates in my Computer Science program all agree that assembling a computer yourself or even paying 100$ for someone else to assemble it for you is still significantly cheaper then buying something prebuilt from a store.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, those price difference estimates are probably approximately twice the real difference (or more) if you buy carefully. Yes, there are systems out there costing a ton that are way overpriced, but you can usually find a prebuilt system with near-identical internals for a lot less. Second, your friends have some important qualities that make them more likely to spend time and effort on assembling parts and being willing to gamble on service needs not covered by individual parts warranties: pondwater for salaries and lots of free time.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
the manufactorers warranty in Canada is really the only relevent warranty. the main computer stores when they "fix" a computer all they do is swap the malfunctioning part. They'll charge you 30$ if they determine its a software error and suggest formating it and not do anything to fix it.
All warranty really does is that they'll for free swap the part, which you can do anyways if each item having its individual manufacturers warranty.
The way it works in Canada is that the only time you'll find a decent prebuilt system being cheaper then assembling it yourself is when its 1000$ or less OR its a liquidation sale as in the store is trying really hard to dump old stock.
Also, for example Dell can give you an okay looking system for say 700$ but I would never recommend it because Dell doesn't allow you to change, upgrade, or so much as open the case on your computer without voided the warranty.
Then there's also the matter that some name brand stores do everything they can to screw their customers ie, MDG computers.
On average, it is cheaper and more reliable to build a computer yourself if you know what you are doing or get someone else who you trust for a small fee to assemble it for you, from say ordering parts from CanadaComputers.com or Tigerdirect.com you might find the odd computer that is a nice deal but for maybe 100$ more you might find something thats 20% cheaper elsewhere.
Also I think its kinda silly dont you think to geuss at the habits of my friends/peers? About 70% of my class I know holds the consensus that assembling a computer is cheaper, the other 30% being only because I'm a loner and I don't talk to the other 30%.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As I said, of course they think it is cheaper, because if they have jobs they don't pay very well, and either way they have lots of free time. For them, it is cheaper. For people with decent salaries and/or less free time, assembling it is not cheaper.
And lots of people, myself, included, know how to assemble computers. That doesn't mean we think it makes sense to do it when we need a new computer.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That makes no sense at all, what does having a salary have to do with whether or not assembling is cheaper vs buying some prepackaged? And what does free time have to do with it? Building your own computer takes 30 minutes tops plus an hour or so to install windows.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My time is worth at least $25 an hour. If you work at 7-Eleven, time you spend goofing off costs you less viz-a-viz time you spend working. Therefore, when you have less income, things that are time intensive are less expensive than they are when you have more income.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As for free time, imagine you had a family, perhaps in addition to a full time job with along commute, and the choice was spending time with your loved one(s) or building the computer. Do you see how that makes the time of someone more valuable than if they have large amounts of free time?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Converted mac user. Always works. fast.
Had a PC for 14 years. Spent countless hours on cleaning and maintenance. Had to re-load windows more than 5 times. Ran much slower.
My macbook hasn't had the slightest hiccup, even when I was trying to screw with it to see if I could fix it. They just work.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
You know, normally I'd take the opportunity to explain how Macs don't actually work any better, but instead there is this little reality distortion field that surrounds the Macs which causes you to either ignore or forget about the little hiccups that happen all the time on them...but I just spent 4 hours trying to get an OS X Server working properly. I'm going to throw it out the window in a few days, just so you know.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They just work.
You know, every time I hear someone say this about a Mac, my brain hears it as "and I know nothing at all about computers." Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Occasionally it bears out. With several projectors I've seen multiple people try to use multiple times, the computers that have 'just worked' (plug in the monitor cable, wait) have all been macs and linux boxes, while the windows boxes often did not.
Some other projectors also just worked for anyone. I've never run into a projector that wasn't well-handled by macs.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"but I would never recommend it because Dell doesn't allow you to change, upgrade, or so much as open the case on your computer without voided the warranty."
This is completely false. And not just for Dell.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
oooouch, Tom. Granted, I probably don't know as much as you, but I did take A+ certification classes, 4 semesters of networking, one programming class, and I made about 500 bucks fixing other people's PCs in my dorm room.
And I'm just being honest with MY experience--that out of all of the people I've met with a mac, not a single one has had complaints--and since getting my Mac, I haven't had a single hiccup. It's not denial, it's the truth.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: And I'm just being honest with MY experience--that out of all of the people I've met with a mac, not a single one has had complaints--and since getting my Mac, I haven't had a single hiccup. It's not denial, it's the truth.
I'm tellin ya, it's the reality distortion field.
I'm not going to say much about Macs as workstations, cause yeah, they're great for browsing the internet, word processing, and other typical workstation things (I personally can't stand the limitations inherent in running a Mac. Or the Way the OS operates. Or the fact that I've basically had to do the equivalent of reaching around my left elbow to scratch my butt to get simple things like a wireless USB dongle that was supposedly Mac compatible working. Or the fact that almost every Mac fanboy I have ever talked to seriously needs to be shot into outer space without a rocket ship. Or the mist of pretentiousness that surrounds the darned things. Yeah. I'm biased...but I have my reasons )
But OS X Server...holy piece of garbage, Batman. We currently have two Mac servers in operation, both installed by Mac guys. Neither one has been able to adequately perform the operations required of an actual server. One of them crashed about once a day, taking down our Internet connection until we eventually turned off the RAID capabilities, basically crippling the server and killing our backup capabilities. The other one completely dies as a file server for any Windows computers on the network. People are merrily working along until...Oops! The network share is no longer accessible.
Neither of these "just work." They just suck. Plain and simple.
Ahem... [/rant]
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I don't appreciate your tone or condescension, Boris. I'm not a mac fanboy, I'm just happy to never have to deal with the problems of PC again. And I'm sure you're making some very valid observations about servers, but most users don't really have to deal with those, do they?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In Canada Dell voids the warranty if you so much as look at their PC's sideways.
Next no matter how busy you are it is impossible for a computer you build yourself to suddenly become more expensive based on your time spent assembling it, it takes only 30 minutes to assemble a machine and even then if you absolutely have no time a friend charging you 100$ to assemble it is still cheaper then buying anything prebuilt from a store. This is pretty much incontrovertible, you may once in a while find a liquidation sale, but the point stands is that generally building your own PC (which you cant do with a Mac) is still on average cheaper then buying the same machine from a store, regardless if a friend builds it for you, even factoring in the time to drive to get all the parts, it is still cheaper and more reliable and then to add insult to injury a PC is also generally half the cost of a Mac with the exact same specs.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I don't appreciate your tone or condescension, Boris. I'm not a mac fanboy, I'm just happy to never have to deal with the problems of PC again. And I'm sure you're making some very valid observations about servers, but most users don't really have to deal with those, do they?
I wasn't calling you a fanboy I was venting at the people out there who think Macs are the saviors of the universe, when they aren't anything really special, technically speaking.
As for most people not having to deal with servers...ummm...A very very large percentage of the world's working force deals with servers every day. Most of those run Windows. They "just work" in fact, so well that most people don't even realize what's going on. But these Mac servers, the latter one I mentioned in particular, are so incredibly inefficient and incapable of performing their primary rolls that is literally eats up hours of lost productivity each day. So yes, the average user (and every one of the 16 people who work at this place and have to deal with this problem are average users) does have to deal with server problems. And those problems can cost a LOT of money. My experiences with Macs have been less that awe inspiring. It's great that they work for you. They really really don't work for me (and the first person who says, "Macs can run Windows" as a reason for me to buy a Mac needs to get a swift bonk on the head. If I want to run Windows, I'll by a freakin PC. It's not exactly a Mac if it's running Windows now is it).
Anyway. Sorry if my ranting and raving offends. I just get tired of hearing how amazing Apple stuff is when it's really very not special when you look at it all from a seriously technical standpoint (IE, take away the flashy flashy). People need to realize. It is a computer. It will do what you need it to, as long as what you need it to do fits into its limitations (and yes, there are limitations). I don't like those limitations, so I use a PC. I don't want my computer thinking it's better than me
Anyway... *goes back to fantasizing about taking a Macbook with Windows installed 5 years back in time to show it to militant Mac fanboys who will then run around screaming things like, "It can't be! NO!" then showing them the Intel sticker and watching them curl up into a twisted ball of twitching...okay. My imagination is a little morbid today. Sowwy You may now return to your regularly scheduled onanism thread.
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
Sadly for you Boris, Macs don't have Intel stickers on them. And that's why that fantasy of yours will never come true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That makes no sense at all, what does having a salary have to do with whether or not assembling is cheaper vs buying some prepackaged? And what does free time have to do with it? Building your own computer takes 30 minutes tops plus an hour or so to install windows.
It took me longer than that - about 10 hours total to get it to the point it would have been had I ordered a whole PC. And I guarantee I'm far faster than the vast majority, even if I am far slower than really good technicians.
I wouldn't have bothered just for the cost savings on the parts I installed, but I couldn't find anyone who would build just the PC I wanted. It was the savings on the parts I didn't want that convinced me.
And even then it wasn't "worth" it except for the fact that I enjoyed it some.
Further, your half-hour estimate doesn't include extra time to order various parts rather than a whole PC. I can't even see how you unpack everything in less than 20 minutes.
quote:That makes no sense at all, what does having a salary have to do with whether or not assembling is cheaper vs buying some prepackaged?
quote:Next no matter how busy you are it is impossible for a computer you build yourself to suddenly become more expensive based on your time spent assembling it
Take microeconomics and pay extra special attention when you discuss opportunity cost.
quote:even then if you absolutely have no time a friend charging you 100$ to assemble it is still cheaper then buying anything prebuilt from a store
This isn't a worthwhile use of time for any of my friends that know how to assemble computers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They just work.
You know, every time I hear someone say this about a Mac, my brain hears it as "and I know nothing at all about computers."
If I don't have to know anything about computers, and the Mac option works better for me than the PC option...this is a REALLY good thing.
Not everyone needs to be a guru. Hardware and software options that support functionality-- that do what they need to do without needing an expert to configure them, massage them, SERVE them...
Imagine.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's fun to see how really nasty PC/Mac arguments can get. It's like a religious debate.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Hatrack is attempting a PC/Mac discussion. <prompt> Allow or Deny </prompt>
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Don't you mean <prompt>Abort, Retry, Fail?</prompt>
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think he meant <cursor>watch</cursor><wait duration=3600 /><prompt>bomb</prompt><lockup />
Sorry, flashback to my desktop publishing days...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not being defensive, dangit.
Why's the OTHER guy always got to be the defensive one?
It's not me, is it? It's him, right?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
When I was trying to figure out what parts I wanted for a new computer the peer who offered to build it for me (and consequently buy the parts from microbytes) said he would ony charge me 100$ for it. A Duo core computer with about 2 GB of Kingston ram using my old pcs HD and Video card for roughly 800$ 900$ for his services, only reason why I didnt was that I got a laptop instead since I needed it for school and one cant log a desktop from one class to another.
10 hours to assemble a computer? that seems quite the stretch, I'm, sorry but I've seen computers in my class disassembled to all the bare parts and reassembled in less then 2 hours only installing windows takes longer, and even then nowadays Vista installs pretty damn fast.
quote:Take microeconomics and pay extra special attention when you discuss opportunity cost.
This follows the same line of reasoning that taking an extra year of studies is equivalent of losing 45,000$ from not working that year which I do not believe to be the case.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That number might well be right. You might not make $45k that year, but you'd also be one year behind on promotions and the like. Of course, then there's whatever gain in wages you see from taking an extra year, which can be evaluated fairly accurately. Personally, I think the extra year would probably be worth it for me for non-monetary reasons, but the monetary tradeoff could be about right at $45k (or it might not, I haven't seen the study).
Do you have any factual reason for not believing there to be a tradeoff? Do you think that no matter what you do you haven't lost the opportunity to do something else with the time you spent?
And of course, the people in your government who direct your national economy, and the CEOs of companies you deal with, and numerous others, all or almost all understand and 'believe in' the idea of opportunity costs. Overall that seems to work out rather well for them.
Whatever you believe to be the case, there are tradeoffs. For instance, if instead of working you play video games, you have earned less money. Whether or not that is worth it to you depends on how much that time spent video gaming is worth to you, and how much that money is worth to you -- if you have no other source of money, that money is probably worth a lot.
[ August 07, 2007, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They just work.
You know, every time I hear someone say this about a Mac, my brain hears it as "and I know nothing at all about computers."
Sure, that is often the case. But there are plenty of people who really do know what they are talking about.
The only OS X kernel panics (the equivalent of a blue screen of death on windows) I've ever had were during an abortive attempt to set up OpenAFS. Obviously, the crashes were not due to any flaw in OS X. A bad kernel-space driver will bring down most any OS.
Other than that, the only applications I've ever had crash were third-party development builds (eg. Quicksilver betas, Camino nightly builds, etc.)
Most surprising, however, is that my iMac recently survived a power flicker that caused all the PCs in the house to reboot. Our computers are on identical surge protectors, and while our clocks and PCs were reset, my iMac literally didn't skip a beat in the music it was playing.
But that's only the opinion of one person. You'll probably care more about the fact that my math department has switched all the faculty over to Macs. A few profs have also kept their solaris or linux workstations, but the only windows machines left are in the undergrad tutorial center.
Now, do you still have doubts that real, competent people find Macs to be very reliable?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
$800? That sounds remarkably high, even in Canadian dollars. I think you were in danger of being ripped off.
I mean, newegg's selling 2 1-Gig sticks of Kingston RAM for under 100USD, barebones cases + motherboards that support Core 2 Duos for under 200USD, and core 2 duos from under/around 200USD. You wouldn't have any problem putting together a system, given the video card and HD, for under 500USD, which is pretty close to the total in CAD nowadays.
And of course, Dell has a pre-built system with a good Core 2 Duo processor, 2 gigs of RAM (you have to choose it, and Dell's RAM is pretty good), a good quality 19" LCD, 320 GB HD, DVD-writer, and Windows Vista for 800 USD. That's 300 USD for a 19" LCD, a 320 GB HD, a DVD-Writer, and assembly (edit: and the operating system). And its cheaper than your friend was going to charge you, and you'd still be able to put your vid card and HD in for even more capacity.
Perhaps you and your friends are not quite as up on the prices of items as you think.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I can buy a cassette for under a buck.
Losers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Now, do you still have doubts that real, competent people find Macs to be very reliable?
Oh, no. But there's a huge difference between "it just works" and "Macs are very reliable, depending on the software you install on them." Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Two observations:
1) The difference between "Mac" computers and their PC alternatives is exaggerated
Perhaps this is partially due to advertising by Apple and Microsoft, but it is the case that Apple is becoming less distinctive. It is my broad understanding that Macs are moving from PowerPC CPUs to Intel, that OS X is essentially a UNIX OS, Apple is working on a version of Safari for Windows, and many Microsoft applications are available for Apple.
I'm just not seeing a huge difference. Certainly not one worth arguing about.
2) The discussion of opportunity cost is a bit off-topic
There are professions where one can make their own hours, lawyers, real estate, self-employment. However for most people who hold jobs with regular hours, one cannot choose between working more for more money or assembling a computer. You can only really work your 35/40 hours and what you do in your own time does not change your "revenue."
Thats why I have many friends that make a lot of money but still say, do their own oil changes, gardening, manage their investments, etc. It may not be entirely cost effective in the sense that they could have made more money doing their jobs than say "wasting" an hour trying to fix their own plumbing, but they never really had that choice in the first place.
Now, moving away from dollar terms, you can say that there is a subjective "emotional" (for lack of a better term) cost in terms of spending time with your family, relaxing, etc. However, some people actually enjoy working on their computer. (or for that matter, doing an oil change, shopping, or working on their car)
Some other people may consider that a waste of time but then not give a second thought to mowing their own lawn instead of paying a high school student to do it.
Its all a bit subjective depending on what one values outside of their job and thus there is no correct answer for everyone, but many different correct answers, one for each person.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I can buy a cassette for under a buck.
Losers.
How many mp3s can you fit on it?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I can fit a couple dozen songs at least. More if I use low speed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Opportunity cost doesn't disappear, and whether or not someone can schedule their own hours doesn't mean their opportunity cost is independent of their salary; for someone who has more money, the amount paid extra for assembly improves in comparison to assembling it themselves, even if they couldn't have worked that hour.
To take an extreme example, imagine you make one million dollars a year. You can either take the time to assemble a computer, or pay a little extra to have it pre-built. Which do you do? (this is assuming you don't find assembling the computer valuable in and of itself, which seems to be true for most people) The same tradeoff applies on a smaller scale for people making $60k vs $30k.
Essentially, earning more money can make your leisure time more valuable to you.
Note that I've always been careful to mention that not all differences are monetary. Money does factor into how people evaluate situations, though. And I agree that some people take pleasure out of assembling a system, making that quite possibly a better deal than buying pre-built. More power to them. However, we're speaking in the general.
And ultimately, the presence of the high opportunity cost of assembling a computer is pretty much proven by human behavior. Even among those savvy enough to build a computer, most buy pre-built.
edit: and I pretty much agree with 1, that's been what I've been saying about the distinction. Also, most of the discussion of opportunity costs is more to help Blayne (edit again: and possibly others) understand the situation (and possibly other situations) than to prove a point.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I have assembled a computer because I found it entertaining and personally rewarding. It sure as hell did not take me a half hour. It took at least a couple of hours, for me.
On the other hand, while I cannot go in to work at any hour I please, I can tutor during my off hours. When I used to tutor, I charged $60 an hour.
My point was not to say that building a computer is not worth it, but to partially explain fugu's point. There is a validity to it: I chose to assemble a machine because I wanted to and found it rewarding for its own merits, and not because I was seriously saving money.
FWIW, last year, when my father needed a new computer, I was all gung-ho for us to "build" one ourselves. I started to research the best prices on parts, and then found a Dell for less than it would have cost me to do so. Some of you might remember the thread, in fact.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I never was big on economics, so perhaps I would find further elaboration useful as well.
It is my basic understanding that opportunity cost is normally measured in terms of monetary cost, that is how much does one choice cost when compared relatively to an alternative choice.
So I could understand for say a self-employed individual, assembling a computer for (as an example) six hours may save only only $10/hour if it would cost $60 for the shop to do it. This would be compared to say the alternative choice of doing their job which might be worth more than $10 an hour.
However, if you have a regular job (wth regular hours), your alternative choice is not normally to go back to doing your job. It might be to spend time with your family, but you do not get paid for that. Now, you could argue that you could save *more* money by doing something else, say rotating the tires on your own car, but that is entirely another discussion.
So going to your example of someone making one million dollars, it does not seem that opportunity cost is a major concern (if they have normal hours). If they were doing a normal job, their opportunity cost is still not between doing their job and assembling a computer. It is still between unpaid chores/free time and the computer *
The big concern that *does* change is just the relative difference in cost between their expendable income and the expendable income for someone making only 30K. Arguably thats the bigger factor in whether one chooses to buy pre-built or not.
* Arguably, if one made that much money, one could spend their own time managing their own finances in a way to save more money than doing "any" chore themselves, but thats very complicated to measure as well.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by xtownaga: Sadly for you Boris, Macs don't have Intel stickers on them. And that's why that fantasy of yours will never come true.
Gee...and here I thought it was because time travel was impossible...methinks we've found one of the aforementioned fanboys...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Opportunity cost (like all costs) is usually easiest to measure monetarily, and easiest to (approximately) compare across individuals. If not possible to do directly, this is often done indirectly, by looking at how much a person is willing to pay to gain some marginal amount of extra spare time/reduce hassle. In fact, using computer assembly choices among those who know how to do it would probably be a decent way to gain a new estimate for the marginal value of leisure time.
This does not mean you don't pay a marginal cost when your alternative isn't something you get paid for.
You aren't paid money to spend time with your family, but you do lose something you value when you don't spend time with your family. How much you value the time you lose (however we choose to measure it) is the opportunity cost, assuming that was what you would do. Opportunity cost is, specifically, the value of the next best opportunity you preclude by doing something else instead.
I suspect that family time is one of the bigger opportunity costs people are not willing to give up in order to assemble their own systems over buying a pre-built one, whether that decision is conscious or not.
Yes, people are giving up the same sort of thing (assuming, likely incorrectly, that the person making one million dollars works normal hours), but that doesn't mean they value that time the same. Just like I value the water I get from a drinking fountain a lot less than someone dying of thirst in the desert would value the same amount of water. The value of something to you is not solely dependent on the type and quantity of that thing, but on numerous possible factors, many of them personal. Your later statement starts to hint at the possibility: the amount of money someone earns changes the value of their leisure time.
Statements like "it does not seem that opportunity cost is a major concern (if they have normal hours)" reflects a serious misunderstanding of opportunity cost. Opportunity cost does not mean salary you give up in order to do something; that is only one possible opportunity cost.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I wasn't calling you a fanboy I was venting at the people out there who think Macs are the saviors of the universe, when they aren't anything really special, technically speaking.
To be fair, every system seems to have their dedicated group of kool-aid drinking, fanboy, cult members, whether it be PC, Linux, Apple, Nintendo, Pepsi, etc., and they all seem to exhibit the same behaviors.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
To be fair, Apple seems to have a lot more, or at least they seem to be more vocal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This follows the same line of reasoning that taking an extra year of studies is equivalent of losing 45,000$ from not working that year which I do not believe to be the case.
No, it's not equivalent to "losing" 45,000. But you do give up money to go to school - both in salary and tuition - and anyone trying to decide if they should go to school should take that money into account.
I'm unlikely to ever recoup the costs of law school, both in salary opportunity missed and direct costs incurred. I did it anyway, though, because becoming a lawyer was worth more to me than the costs. Had I not calculated the likely costs of the decision to abandon my business and go to law school, I would not have even been able to consider whether the costs were worth it to me.
Quite simply, if you could earn $45k if you weren't in school, then going to school costs you at least $45k in earnings this year. This is not really disputable.
What are disputable are some of the conclusions some people might draw based on that fact, such as "therefore it's not worth going to school."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by xtownaga: Sadly for you Boris, Macs don't have Intel stickers on them. And that's why that fantasy of yours will never come true.
Gee...and here I thought it was because time travel was impossible...methinks we've found one of the aforementioned fanboys...
My iMac at work doesn't have an Intel sticker, even though it does have an Intel processor. Apple seems to have putting any kind of decal or logo on their computers other than the Apple logo.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:This follows the same line of reasoning that taking an extra year of studies is equivalent of losing 45,000$ from not working that year which I do not believe to be the case.
No, it's not equivalent to "losing" 45,000.
Actually, it's somewhat worse than that. My first year out of grad school, I earned $22,000. Cor began one year before me, at the same rate (the scale amount, at that time and that school, for a first year teacher). Now, she started a year before me because she's older than I am, but let's imagine instead that it was because I chose to take a fifth year of college. My first year, I was not merely $22,000 behind her. Each of us received experience raises averaging about 4% a year. So based on that, my first year she made around $22,880 while I made just $22,000, putting me actually $22,880 behind her. Each year after that, I fell a little bit further behind, as I got raises on a smaller amount. So my second year, I would have made $22,880 to her $23,795, putting me $2200 + $880 + $915 = $23,795 behind over the course of my career. Basically, for every year we both work, I am behind by an amount equal to the salary she earns in her last year, assuming this pattern holds. (An accurate enough assumption for an academic exercise.) The only way I catch up with her is by retiring a year later. If we were both the same age, though, that means I retire at 68 while she retires at 67, though.
Now, college and professional school are still worth it, because the earning potential of a high school graduate is currently, what, $16000 a year? Versus about $35000 for a college graduate?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My objection wasn't to the number but the word "losing."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
From a purely financial standpoint, the money is lost, is it not?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Only if you count paying for groceries or buying a car as "losing" money.
I count it as spending money - that is, exchanging money (or the opportunity to earn money) for something else of value.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ah. I get you.
It could be argued, though, that if you enter the workforce later for frivolous reasons, you may be wasting money, in the sense of paying more for something than it is worth.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In Quebec its only 100$ a semester for CEGEP.
The computer for 800$ I don't remember the parts it was all from microbytes and it was a good deal I dont remmeber the exact parts, nowadays those parts are probably 400$.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, it was a while in the past. I still suspect there was little significant difference in price.
As far as cost, you seem to misunderstand. Imagine you are about to choose to do that final year or not, and you have in front of you a job offer with a salary of thirty thousand CAD.
So, if you go to school, you will pay 100CAD per semester, and have -200CAD after the year is over, plus some schooling. If you don't go to school, you will have 30000CAD after the year is over (well, there are taxes and such, and the school year doesn't line up perfectly with the academic year . . . assume you would get the 30000CAD for the exact same period you were in school, after taxes).
So in exchange for some schooling, you have given up 200CAD and the opportunity to have another 30000CAD. That 30000CAD is an opportunity cost. If the schooling is worth 30200CAD to you, then take it. If not, don't. But don't take the schooling if it is only worth 200CAD or a little more to you, because you're giving up 30000CAD in order to get it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)