Wow, sagcat, I have one of those snowy imacs. And I have ALWAYS had OSX on it and I bought it waaaay back in 2001. It still runs perfectly and I can open any number of programs on it with no problem very fast. I also have a snowy ibook that I bought in 2000, one of the first to come out with OSX on it. I use for travel and take it to the office. It still runs fast with no problems. I even use photoshop CS2 with large photo processing changes that I do on it...with no slowdown and NO problems. I just wonder how I could do intense photoshop work with either of those machines if they have limitations as you suggest. In addition, I just upgraded an old 1999 blue mac model G3 to OSX 3.9 and it runs like a charm. So, I don't understand how someone as techy as you are, could have such ignorance about or such difficulty with those things.

As a matter fact, I JUST bought a new imac with intel to replace the snowy imac. I ONLY did so because I need Windows for some client work and my Windows laptop scares the shit out me in that it loves it's viruses and coming up in safe mode screen and I just do not have time to fool with fixing that nonsense if I don't have to. I have work to get done.

What I have learned from reading the comments about this article is the sheer ignorance and willful stupidity that some Windows users have about macs. Some of you know absolutely nothing about macs except for the lies you've been told and/or the lies you tell. I don't really care if you want to keep your Windows machine and love to tinker with it, etc. or whatever reason it is you want it for. That's fine. But don't try and tell those of us with macs, that we have something less than you do. Now that's piece of crap.

donh82: I just paid about $50 for a 2 year license for my virus software ('cause I got the extra special package). That's not every time I turn around, and certainly not HUNDREDS of dollars. Do you run a Mac without any protection?

I have NEVER made my computer so "gummed" up with whatever that I had to pay ANYTHING for ANYONE to come and fix it. Maybe I underestimate the power of users to screw things up. But seriously, people really do use PCs without having to fix them constantly. Really.

You live in a very confused world, don't you?

...

Oh, and Jake, fine points. I still say that built into any survey of "luxury"-feeling items is the perception that they are supposed to be better. I would be an idiot if I was saying that first class isn't a nicer way to fly--you don't think that I'm an idiot, do you? Perhaps I've been making my points too subtle, or maybe first class airlines aren't the way to make the point.

But wouldn't you say that a fancier packaged item with a higher price immediately has a higher perception of quality over something in a plainer package selling for less? Is it justified paying an extra $300 for niceness that you could have gotten for an extra $30? Would you feel more inclined to give a higher rating to the thing that you perceived as nicer because someone convinced you it was nicer? Did you ever stop to think that the people who actually review products favorably may already be have a bias towards them and that the people who feel rather mediocre about a product don't feel the need to give their opinions? Do you think that there is no bias in a publication that makes it money selling ads?

Because if you answered "no" to these questions, there are advertisers, market researchers, and psychologists to disagree with you.

I'm merely saying that airline passengers who fly first class and give a 5 star ratings have less of an impact on someone who flies coach and gives 5 stars. You already assumed that first class was good, so is your rating already padded? I would think so.

Besides, why would simply giving it higher marks make me think it has that much more value? The question remains: is the extra money actually worth what I'm getting? That's quite debatable among different folks. Obviously.

jason.

Sorry, but this is the kind of thing that prompts responses:

"My computer before that was a shiny iMac (snow) with MacOS 9.1."

"My iMac before that was $2000."

The snow iMac sold for $1500. If you paid $2000 for it, it wasn't Apple's fault.

"my *new* iMac couldn't run it except under incredibly clunky (unusable) speeds."

The first version of OS X was slow and clunky on everything.

"So I went back to 9.1. For which Apple made no other program upgrades ever"

Yeah, and? I used OS 8.6 on a first-generation iMac until 2004. You could have used your snow iMac and 9.1 at least that long.

"to run OSX, you needed - surprise - a new computer."

No, you just needed patience. Lots of people have successfully installed and run later versions of OS X on machines like yours. Just search for G3 iMacs being sold on Craigslist--they're all running OS X.

"Apple has built in obsolescence, snazzy design, and marketing as it's foundations for profit. NOT long term usability."

Like I said, I used my 1998 iMac for 6 years. You must have also missed the other letters from people who've had their Macs for a long time.

Again, I'm not telling anyone to buy a Mac. But the rampant mis- and disinformation spread about them gets tiresome.

Sorry if so, but I wanted to answer these direct questions:

"you don't think that I'm an idiot, do you?"

No, I don't.

"But wouldn't you say that a fancier packaged item with a higher price immediately has a higher perception of quality over something in a plainer package selling for less? Is it justified paying an extra $300 for niceness that you could have gotten for an extra $30? Would you feel more inclined to give a higher rating to the thing that you perceived as nicer because someone convinced you it was nicer?"

Yes, no, yes. But consumer satisfaction surveys are a pretty well established way of evaluating product performance. I don't think the factors you cite can account for the entire ratings difference.

"Did you ever stop to think that the people who actually review products favorably may already be have a bias towards them and that the people who feel rather mediocre about a product don't feel the need to give their opinions? Do you think that there is no bias in a publication that makes it money selling ads?"

I've worked at such places, and in my experience (1) magazines don't generally let only the people who already like a product review it--that's not how the assignment process works; (2) writers and editors, except at the management level, have little idea of or interest in who the advertisers are; and (3) I doubt PC Magazine runs many Apple ads.