How do I justify cost of G5?

[infoterror]

A friend posted this on his blog:

Why You Have to Be Insane... (http://www.anus.com/zine/news/1002.html)

His point: a PC "similarly equipped" to a dual G5 mac is $700, versus $2000 for the Mac. But... how do I know if it really is similarly "equipped"? I'd like to have some hard facts with which to argue against him. Can anyone help?

[shatteringglass]

Your friend's blog is hosted by www.anus.com. Enough said.

[Mac+]

I wouldn't get into the component war ... not worth it. Some people just like to be obnoxious and argue for the sake of arguing.

The simple fact is thay you can't account for taste. If your friend is happy with that system, well and good. If you are happy with the Mac well and good.

I know what system I prefer and don't feel compelled to justify to it anybody. If they ask why I chose Mac OS X and the Apple hardware it runs on, then I could talk their ears off ... but not until they asked me directly. ;) :lol:

[Franz Josef]

It's called anus for a reason. System shootouts might help - http://www.systemshootouts.org/ - but let's get real. There will no doubt be 74 bazillion reasons Macs are better but listing detailed hardware tech specs isn't anywhere in the top ten - that is such a Windows approach. This is about productivity, about interaction with user, excellent intuitive UI, about stability, security. A Mac isn't some piece of meat which runs a great OS on top, it's an integrated whole - it's a tool, a facilitator. If you want to persuade him, have him spend time using one.

To answer your question, why buy a G5 rather than a Windows machine? It will enrich you, make your life easier, make you more productive, be fun - Life's too short not to. Your friend will rarely if ever find a piece of technology which interacts as well with him as a Mac.

[Or just get new friends]

[regelfolgen]

It's not just that this is comparing Apples with ... other things, it's that this isn't even a good Apple v PC comparison. To be realistic, it should be pitting a Mac up against a Brand Name PC. Of course it's cheaper to buy components and stick them together - but you couldn't do that with a Mac, even if you wanted to. It's such a misleading and fallacious premise.

I ordered a 17" 2.0GHz iMac last week. I was torn by the amount of money, but then I saw a HP desktop advertised for much the same price. The only plus the HP had was a TV tuner (big deal), whereas the iMac has a better OS and better design and loads of other benefits.

Having used PCs all my life, and am sick of taking extreme measures against the risk of spyware, viruses, BSOD, driver issues with XP, incompatibility issues etc etc, I think it would be insane to buy a PC again.

[Koodari]

- Replace PC processor, motherboard and memory with dual Xeons or Opterons and compatible motherboard and memory.
- Replace PC case with a quality (read: $150) aluminum workstation case.
- Replace Windows XP Home with Windows XP Professional.
- Add full labor costs to the pile of spare parts. Not just the best case scenario where you slam the parts together: weighted average of the best case scenario, and the one where you waste days tracking tricky hardware and driver faults.
- Add full labor cost for the time that is used to research for the best parts and best prices.
- Add shipping costs to the pile of parts if they were not included.

After that you can start comparing the boxes for real. The fact that the writer missed all this leads me to think he is either a total moron or a troll.

[Kickaha]

Ask him this: why choose a Windows machine? The moment he starts talking about the hardware, point out that he *HAS* to drop to that level because the OS simply isn't worth mentioning. Now point out that the OS and applications are what the user interacts with - if they aren't worth it, no amount of hardware underneath will make it a worthwhile machine.

Moving to Intel is going to be interesting.

[Koodari]

Kickaha, in the general case that would be the way to go, and the thing that really makes the difference... but it's much more complicated to argue about. In this case the difference between the two "compared" hardwares is just so great, it's worth pointing that out first just to save time. If that criticism doesn't sink in, any further argument is a waste of time, it's then going to deaf ears.

[beardedmacuser]

You should be asking the question how much would it cost to buy a Windows machine which is as secure, stable, productive and fun to work with as a new G5?

These two computers are far too different to be a valid comparison. And when I say computer I mean the whole user-OS-hardware experience. After all, the reason you buy a computer is to actually do stuff and not just look at all the components that are inside.

[kretara]

This would be a better comparison:

Apple PowerMac G5:
2 x 2.7ghz
2gb RAM (2x1gb)
250gb SATA drive
nvidia 6800 256mb graphics card
modem
dvd+- rw

$3928

or add in wireless and bluetooth (from what I can see its not offered on the dell) and the price comes to:
$4027


Dell Precision 670 (with 64bit support and OS)
2x3.0ghz
2gb RAM (2x1gb)
250gb SATA drive
dvd+-rw
nvidia quadro fx 3400 256mb graphics card
symantic antivirus
64bit windows os

$3935



Looks like a wash to me as far as price for a workstation. Having used a dual 2.8ghz precision workstation (really just played with it) under windows I can say that the "feel" is slower than my 1st generation G5 dual 2.0.

I also have a precision 530 (2x1.7 xeon, 512mb ram, 10k scsi 2x9gb drives, running gentoo) and a quicksilver (2x1ghz, 1.5gb ram, 2x80gb deathstar drives) is a match for my precision and beats it in alot of things.

[Bryson]

- Replace PC processor, motherboard and memory with dual Xeons or Opterons and compatible motherboard and memory.
- Replace PC case with a quality (read: $150) aluminum workstation case.
- Replace Windows XP Home with Windows XP Professional.
- Add full labor costs to the pile of spare parts. Not just the best case scenario where you slam the parts together: weighted average of the best case scenario, and the one where you waste days tracking tricky hardware and driver faults.
- Add full labor cost for the time that is used to research for the best parts and best prices.
- Add shipping costs to the pile of parts if they were not included.

After that you can start comparing the boxes for real. The fact that the writer missed all this leads me to think he is either a total moron or a troll.

Damn right. It bothers me no end when people assume that their time is free. Do you work for free? I don't!

This argument holds for any "DIY" solution to [i]anything/[i]. When you factor in your time, you may as well pay someone who is an expert to do it quicker!

[infoterror]

This argument holds for any "DIY" solution to [i]anything/[i]. When you factor in your time, you may as well pay someone who is an expert to do it quicker!

Well, you can get a PC assembled for about $100.

It's an interesting question. For the 64-bit machines, we're looking at AMDs. From the looks of things, the Intel chips are faster, and the PC motherboards, despite a slower clock rate, are also faster.

I think he's going to install BSD on it, which actually has a pretty nifty desktop called KDE. Of course, it doesn't have lots of specialized features, but open source people are developing new ideas all the time, and some of the XML-based associative desktop tools like quite impressive. I'd like to see Mac OS follow their lead (although probably not open source the OS itself, LOL!).

:)

[Kickaha]

Well, you can get a PC assembled for about $100.

Yes, and you can get a used Yugo for about the same price, so why bother buying anything else for a car? :)

[AppleKing666]

Yo' stoopit mac lovin' bitches don't know shit 'bout PC costs, cause you never had the pleasure of havin' a good decent PC for a low cost built here. Fuck all y'all

[Brad]

Remember, folks: don't feed the trolls. Moving right along...

[Luca]

It'll cost you a pretty penny to build a PC as nice as a PowerMac G5. Yeah, you can throw together a standard home system for under a grand that'll easily outperform a more expensive iMac, but if you want something on the level of the G5s you'll have to go with a dual Opteron setup with eight RAM slots, PCI-X, a super high quality 500W or higher power supply, and a video card with dual DVI outputs. I just configured a system at NewEgg that I think compares to the dual 2.3 GHz PowerMac:

Lian Li full tower case - $189
Vantec 520W power supply - $95
Tyan dual socket 940 motherboard w/ PCI-X and 8xDDR slots - $414
Two AMD Opteron 2.2 GHz processors - $489 each ($978 total)
Two Crucial 256 MB PC3200 memory - $35 each ($70 total)
250 GB SATA hard drive - $120
16x dual layer DVD burner - $47
Radeon 9600 256 MB, dual DVI - $126
Standard keyboard + optical mouse - $17
Windows XP Pro 64-bit edition - $155
Shipping - $60
Total cost - $2271

That's for a completely unassembled system with no tech support and with warranties on the individual parts (requiring you to jump through hoops and do your own troubleshooting if anything goes wrong). I'd say the PowerMacs are pretty competitive.

EDIT: In fact, if you replace the dual 2.2 GHz Opteron processors ($489 each) with dual 2.6 GHz Opterons ($865 each), the price rises to $3023, greater than the price of a dual 2.7 GHz PowerMac and without a water cooling system. In fact, I didn't even add the cost of a nicely-made cooling system to this. To be fair you should really add some temperature monitors and several auto-sensing fans that change speed based on the temperature of the system.

[Luca]

I did some further exploration and put some hard numbers to the complaint that Apple grossly overcharges for hardware upgrades. I used the eMac as an example.

Apple charges $50 to upgrade the hard drive from 80 GB to 160 GB on the $799 eMac. They also charge $50 to replace the 256 MB DIMM with a 512 MB DIMM, so they must be charging $100 to replace the Combo drive with a Superdrive (on the $999 Superdrive model). Real-life price differences are actually about $30 for the hard drives ($55 and $85 for the two sizes, respectively), $20 for the RAM ($20 and $40), and $20 for the optical drives ($30 and $50).

Since there are no changes to the $999 eMac's motherboard, all the upgrades it has can be done yourself if you have the patience to open your computer and upgrade it. If you add a 512 MB module for $40 (not replacing the 256 MB one), replace the Combo drive with a $50 DVD burner (selling the Combo on eBay for $30), and replace the 80 GB hard drive with a 160 GB one (selling the old one for $40), you'll be spending a total of $904 for exactly the same machine as the $999 eMac, but with a little more RAM (768 MB vs. 512 MB).

I took it a step further and said that if you buy an extra 1 GB of RAM instead of 512 MB and replaced the hard drive with a 250 GB instead of a 160 GB, you could get an even better deal. And you do. A high-quality 1 GB RAM module (using Samsung chips) costs about $90, and a 250 GB hard drive costs $120. Substitute those values in for the RAM and hard drive prices from the previous example, and the total comes to $989, still slightly less than Apple charges for the Superdrive machine, but with 1.25 GB of RAM and a larger hard drive than Apple even lets you configure. They don't even let you max the RAM out to 2 GB... the farthest they'll let you go with the eMac is 2x512 MB, for $125 more than 1x512 MB. And you can't get any hard drive larger than 160 GB.

Yeah, it's true that all these upgrades will probably void your warranty and will definitely require a lot of patience to do the work... but it's an interesting exercise to see just how much Apple is making on these BTO accessories.

[porter]

You could also argue, "Why you have to be insane to build your own computer."

If you just want a cheap computer, then here you go:

He's arguing you can build yourself a good computer for $700. We'll add on the cost of XP since most people would pick Windows over Unix. So add an extra $85. Now it's $785. You can buy a similarily speced Dell Dimension w/ a 2.80GHz Pentium 4 processor for $749. You can get the 3.0GHz version for $859. Both come with a 17" CRT monitor.

Now to make it fair, let's add on the cost of a 17" CRT monitor from newegg.com (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824197010) to the anus computer, the cheapest one is $97. So now it's $882 dollars.

Which makes it $23 more expensive and instead of just opening the box and using the computer, you have to spend time to put the anus computer together and you have to install the software as well.

So you have to be crazy to want to spend more money and more time to get the exact same computer to work.

[Luca]

No, you're looking at it wrong. You just said that you can make a good computer for $700, which you can. But you're assuming that computer's going to be similar to an eMac... it won't. It'll be a LOT faster/better if you're spending $700 before a monitor and an OS.

I just assembled one similar to the eMac (1.58 GHz AMD Sempron, 160 GB, 512 MB, DVD-R, Radeon 9600, speakers, XP Home, keyboard/mouse, microATX case, 17" CRT) for a total cost of $650 shipped. But like you said, you have to put it all together yourself and handle all the problems that crop up.

Don't try to fight PC building on price... it just won't happen, not even with Dell, and certainly not with Apple. Macs do cost a lot more than Windows PCs. On the other hand, Macs offer higher overall quality as well as several features you wouldn't expect on any PC (I haven't found a single "manufactured" desktop with internal Bluetooth, which is standard on the iMac and also an option on the PowerMac).

[Swing]

Apple and MS play on different fields, or at least they did before WWDC, and comparing the cost of hardware is as outmoded as are the cpu MHz wars.

Apple was forced to break backward compatibility as it strove to innovate and offer clearly superior products. Microsoft was able to become immensely rich and powerful merely by focusing its efforts to support a vast and increasingly outmoded legacy base (and to use various questionable means to crush competitors).

Apple now has a vastly superior OS, even more so than ever, primarily because it was able to break legacy compatibility. Apple's OS is more modern and flexible practically by definition.

Apple also offers, practically out of the box if not out of the box, great applications such as is included in iLife which immediately work correctly and which would cost much more in the PC world, especially if hardware costs to run the software were included.

And if one insists on comparing costs, then do not compare the cost of a Dell but the cost of a high-end custom built machine with superior components, especially with a superior motherboard with a superior chipset (and not even necessarily with various exotic hardware items, as Apple's actual hardware components are more often than not seemingly plain). Once that is done the apparent cost disparity is lessened considerably, though the disparity in OS quality, and overall hardware design, will remain.

[Luca]

Absolutely. In the end... it's the software that makes all the difference. Everything the user sees is based on the software they run. Comparable hardware almost never equals comparable performance if you're running different software.

Take an area where PCs are incredibly strong... gaming. I bet the $650 system I configured would beat the crap out of just about any Mac (except maybe a dual G5 w/ GeForce 6800 Ultra or Radeon X800XT) in just about any game. Why? The hardware isn't superior to most Macs... it's about the same as an eMac. But the software (in this case a game) is such that it'll run fine on low-end PC hardware, but it requires high-end Mac hardware.

Now let's look at an area where Macs are really strong... multimedia creation. In this case, you can compare the eMac to that $650 system and while they may encode things at roughly the same speed, the eMac will be a much faster system simply because the software for it is a lot better (not faster, better). Hell, the cheap PC I configured would have to use a haphazard combination of free multimedia software that doesn't work together in order to reach the same level of functionality. Picasa 2 instead of iPhoto (arguably a better app since it's so much faster than iPhoto), iTunes, Windows Movie Maker instead of iMovie, and so on.

There are a few areas where software isn't everything and the only way around it is to use better hardware... things like RAM, hard drives and optical drives are like that. No matter how great your software is, you can never get around the need for RAM and hard drive space, and you can never turn a CD burner into a DVD burner.

[infoterror]

He's arguing you can build yourself a good computer for $700. We'll add on the cost of XP since most people would pick Windows over Unix. So add an extra $85. Now it's $785. You can buy a similarily speced Dell Dimension w/ a 2.80GHz Pentium 4 processor for $749. You can get the 3.0GHz version for $859. Both come with a 17" CRT monitor.

Um, well, I don't know too much about it, but I am a Dell-hater. The system he has specced is a far better deal than that Dell, as motherboard, RAM and video will be much faster.

Also, from the processor comparisons I've seen, it's faster than the dual-G5 Mac, so I can see why he'd want the extra speed. Windows XP is $85 and unless someone can come up with a compelling reason otherwise, as easy to use as the Mac.

It's not the software - it's what you do with it - and it's how well it fits the task that matters. I got into this argument with some dude over KDE, which he said was superior to both Mac OS and Windows, and my point was this: with ten minutes of configuration, any of the three will probably do the same job. I'm not anti-KDE, but I just don't see the point of worshipping one software platform to the point of denying reality.

And to the people who had mean things to say about anus.com - you might want to read the site before you make a snide comment, as clearly smarter people than yourself reside there.

Anyway, back to topic at hand... the debate rages on. I went to a concert last night with four of my friends, and when the noise (incompetent soundman) ended, we talked about this. One person is a die-hard G5 user, but couldn't give me any reasons why the machine was better. Another uses a PC out of convenience and doesn't care what might or might not be better; he does sound production and everything he needs fits easily into a $1,000 computer that never breaks down. Another is undecided, and then there's my friend, who mainly likes the looks of the G5.

So it makes for some interesting dialogue!

[infoterror]

And if one insists on comparing costs, then do not compare the cost of a Dell but the cost of a high-end custom built machine with superior components, especially with a superior motherboard with a superior chipset (and not even necessarily with various exotic hardware items, as Apple's actual hardware components are more often than not seemingly plain). Once that is done the apparent cost disparity is lessened considerably, though the disparity in OS quality, and overall hardware design, will remain.

Unfortunately, that's what he did in the comparison - he matched the Mac hardware in performance and specialty items like the video. Do you know what kind of HDs ship in the new Macs? I'm really fond of the Seagates, and have come to distrust Maxtor and Western Digital - too many RMAs.

[infoterror]

It'll cost you a pretty penny to build a PC as nice as a PowerMac G5. Yeah, you can throw together a standard home system for under a grand that'll easily outperform a more expensive iMac, but if you want something on the level of the G5s you'll have to go with a dual Opteron setup with eight RAM slots, PCI-X, a super high quality 500W or higher power supply, and a video card with dual DVI outputs.

I don't agree; the Intel chips run faster than the G5s by a wide margin, and it's no problem to find a high-performing motherboard like the Abit which is, in my experience, less congested than the Mac hardware. If you look at the figures, his machine is computationally identical to the Mac if not a smidgen (technical term) faster, and that's why this argument is difficult.

I think there's something to be said for the case of the G5s though. They're so pretty. I am quite tired of beige, black or white PC boxes, and I guess one could go for one of those LED-enhanced cases, but that's never been something I want on my desktop, at least - a computer that looks like a UFO dropped it off five minutes ago.

[DMBand0026]

Okay, allow me to clear up a few things for you.

1. Not all Intel chips are better than the PowerPC chips, namely the "flagship" of the Pentium line, the Pentium 4. I don't really have the motivation to get into how bad the P4 really is, but I'll just tell you that the G5 blows the P4 out of the water.

2. Glowing computers = teh geek! Apple creates visually pleasing enclosures for their products in part so that people don't go out and buy another power supply to power all the LEDs in their computer. Granted, yes...I'm exaggerating, but it's funnier that way.

3. Yes, you can get a good MoBo for a computer you're building yourself, but you're going to have to break the bank to find one that's as good as the one in the G5 PowerMacs just like Luca said.

[Luca]

Faster than the G5s in what? Things vary so much. Obviously if you want to support an idea that PCs are faster, you just have to compare framerates for a $700 PC and a $2500 Mac, and it'll be pretty apparent that PCs are better for gaming. But that's a function of the software.

What about the wide variety of high-end applications (http://www.apple.com/powermac/software.html) that G5s are used for? I don't trust Apple's benchmarks but I also don't believe that a single Pentium 4 is going to be "faster by a wide margin" as you claim, at least in areas where the PowerMac is meant to compete.

The thing is, you can't think of a PowerMac as a consumer machine. It's not for the hobbyist. PowerMacs are meant for people who make their living using their computer and need the most advanced thing possible. Not only is the software better designed for that, but the hardware is actually a good deal when compared to PCs. Don't compare a high end, 64-bit, dual processor workstation (PowerMac G5) to an off-the-shelf Dell with a Pentium 4. They're not in the same league.

EDIT: To use one of those godawful analogies, you could say that a PowerMac (or a dual Xeon/Opteron workstation) is like a marathon runner, while a Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 consumer/gaming PC is like a sprinter. In a very specialized area, the gaming PC will easily outrun the workstation, but in other areas the workstation has the advantage. You can't easily compare them because they're not in the same league and they're not meant to be used for the same things.

[Kickaha]

Windows XP is $85 and unless someone can come up with a compelling reason otherwise, as easy to use as the Mac.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit... ;)

I'm going to have to just disagree with you on this one. 'Easy to use' is highly subjective. If you mean 'learn one or two apps and nothing else', then the ease of use is in the apps, and yeah, it's a wash depending on the apps themselves. If however you mean 'consistent UI principles that make learning new apps from scratch a snap', I'm afraid I have to give the Mac a strong advantage.

No system is truly 'intuitive', and every system requires some learning. The number of things a new user needs to keep in mind to be familiar and comfortable with the system, however, is much lower in my experience on the Mac.

It's... elegant, for the most part. Windows and the various Linux desktops I've used are simply not. See here (http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?postid=210764#post210764) for why I think this matters.

[Powerdoc]

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit... ;)

I'm going to have to just disagree with you on this one. 'Easy to use' is highly subjective. If you mean 'learn one or two apps and nothing else', then the ease of use is in the apps, and yeah, it's a wash depending on the apps themselves. If however you mean 'consistent UI principles that make learning new apps from scratch a snap', I'm afraid I have to give the Mac a strong advantage.

No system is truly 'intuitive', and every system requires some learning. The number of things a new user needs to keep in mind to be familiar and comfortable with the system, however, is much lower in my experience on the Mac.

It's... elegant, for the most part. Windows and the various Linux desktops I've used are simply not. See here (http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?postid=210764#post210764) for why I think this matters.
That's right, Windows is not intuitive at all. For example, I installed once a game for my daughter, that work only in the 256 colors mode. On a mac, setting the right mode would have been a cakewalk. On windows, I had to press the right button of the mouse while clicking on the game icon, and then choose the right sub menu ...

Luckily the help on Windows is great, because if it was not the case, my daughters would have never played this game.

[infoterror]

Don't compare a high end, 64-bit, dual processor workstation (PowerMac G5) to an off-the-shelf Dell with a Pentium 4. They're not in the same league.

I didn't.

However, I did compare a PC using a very superior motherboard to the Mac. Latency and other problems on Mac motherboards are to be expected, but the Abit boards are quite clean.

Dell's boards... Dells... well, depends on the machine, to be fair, not that I'm inclined to, but I think Dells are -- well, you probably have an obscenity filter on this board, so you'll just have to guess :)

I think we're close to answering the question of this thread though. Responses are basically:

1) You buy a Mac for the software - it's $1300 better.
2) You buy a Mac to avoid a glowing case ;)
3) Macs are faster, even though benchmarks say otherwise
4) Macs are faster for specific apps, even though benchmarks would indicate this to be unlikely

So far, #1 is the only coherent reason, and I'm not sure I agree with it. KDE is a very logically consistent desktop; main thing it lacks are the little widgets and stuff from the Mac, but I'm sure some Open Source gurus are working on that now.

Did I miss any? I'm trying to be fair here.

[MCQ]

I didn't.

However, I did compare a PC using a very superior motherboard to the Mac. Latency and other problems on Mac motherboards are to be expected, but the Abit boards are quite clean.

Dell's boards... Dells... well, depends on the machine, to be fair, not that I'm inclined to, but I think Dells are -- well, you probably have an obscenity filter on this board, so you'll just have to guess :)

I think we're close to answering the question of this thread though. Responses are basically:

1) You buy a Mac for the software - it's $1300 better.
2) You buy a Mac to avoid a glowing case ;)
3) Macs are faster, even though benchmarks say otherwise
4) Macs are faster for specific apps, even though benchmarks would indicate this to be unlikely

So far, #1 is the only coherent reason, and I'm not sure I agree with it. KDE is a very logically consistent desktop; main thing it lacks are the little widgets and stuff from the Mac, but I'm sure some Open Source gurus are working on that now.

Did I miss any? I'm trying to be fair here.

I'll tie mine towards number 1, but it extends further than that: productivity. Design of the OS and supporting software should be such that one can do things efficiently, and multitask effectively. Personally, I'm willing to pay for something that allows me to do this to save time. To spend time finding things in Linux to compare against the iLife suite and install it would cost me time. I don't get the benefits of Spotlight and Expose technology in the OS, which saves me time.

The time I'd spend on such things would easily begin to chip away at that price difference very quickly. But - what I don't see here in the initial argument is why there's a comparison of hardware without discussing what the computers would be used for. Is this just for general usage? In that case, why aren't we comparing an iMac to this, which comes with an LCD?

If it's comparing it for what the typical usage is for each machine - a sizable number of Dual G5 users are doing it for content creation in video editing with Final Cut Studio. Where are you going to get something comparable for Linux? The productivity workflows, some of which are highlighted here: http://www.apple.com/pro/ are an example of why people choose the Dual G5. Are they wrong? Depends - can one do the same workflows in Linux as efficiently?

[Luca]

The software alone isn't $1300 better. You're still using strange hardware comparisons. Here's how I see it - the minimum price for a decent Mac is quite a bit higher than the minimum price for a decent PC, but near the high end the gap narrows. I've spent a total of about a grand on my Mac, and overall it's about as good as a $600-$700 PC. Do I think the software is worth $300-$400 more? In the long run, yeah. $1300 more? No. I wouldn't spend $1300 on a computer anyway, because I'm just not a demanding user.

[FallenFromTheTree]

I can't see how you can argue the pros of a p/c here when you can still get a screaming dual G5 2.0 Rev B, new for $1899 (reseller ) or a refurb for $1649.

I'm getting the impression that the author of this post simpy can't afford quality,
especially if he would even consider buying a <$700 Wintel Box.

There's plenty of once hard line Wintel Box users here that will tell you why a Mac is better.

You can buy a loaded Chevy for way less than a Toyota
but you still end up with a Chevy.

If you want to talk about a serious P/C like the new Alienware ALX Xeon
for like $5600, then come back and tell us Macs are too expensive.

[BenRoethig]

I didn't.

However, I did compare a PC using a very superior motherboard to the Mac. Latency and other problems on Mac motherboards are to be expected, but the Abit boards are quite clean.

Dell's boards... Dells... well, depends on the machine, to be fair, not that I'm inclined to, but I think Dells are -- well, you probably have an obscenity filter on this board, so you'll just have to guess :)

I think we're close to answering the question of this thread though. Responses are basically:

1) You buy a Mac for the software - it's $1300 better.
2) You buy a Mac to avoid a glowing case ;)
3) Macs are faster, even though benchmarks say otherwise
4) Macs are faster for specific apps, even though benchmarks would indicate this to be unlikely

So far, #1 is the only coherent reason, and I'm not sure I agree with it. KDE is a very logically consistent desktop; main thing it lacks are the little widgets and stuff from the Mac, but I'm sure some Open Source gurus are working on that now.

Did I miss any? I'm trying to be fair here.

5) It looks like you're trying to judge a Professional system designed for running professional applications by comparing it to a $700 dollar PC playing Doom 3.

I bet you wouldn't been too impressed by the Doom numbers of a $2200 2.0 ghz Alienware MJ-12 7550A dual Opteron workstation either. However it's not designed to play doom. It, like the G5, is designed to use professional multi-processor aware programs. Compare your $700 PC with an iMac.

[justmenow]

I have had to be "cross platform" for the last five years (as in Windows and Mac OS).
Last February I had to replace my aging Gateway PC, so I decoded to build one, and ordered the parts from NewEgg. I figured since I had replaced hard drives and done mother boards swaps that I could do this. Well I did. The total cost of parts was $800 plus some shipping. I really just wanted to see if I could do it. Did I sweat bullets doing this? Pretty close. Being older at 50+, and not having the dexterity or eyesight some of you younger guys have, didn't help. But I just wanted to prove that the old guy still could, if you know what I mean.

Did I have fun doing this? Yes, I enjoy challenges. Would I do it again? I don't know.

While it's a good PC (AMD chip and ANSUS motherboard) I don't use it as much as my Macs. Some days it stays turned off. I use it only when I have some Windows only software.

I enjoy using my Mac more. Windows XP Pro is much better than Windows used to be; in fact it was Windows Me which made switch to the Mac (Me was crap). But now, with all the malware and such, I think I would still consider Mac OS to have advantages.

Geez I have rambled. Anyway, build a PC if you enjoy doing that sort of thing. How much do you value your time? That's the key. I personally like using OS X better myself. As for Linux, well we'll see.

[infoterror]

I bet you wouldn't been too impressed by the Doom numbers of a $2200 2.0 ghz Alienware MJ-12 7550A dual Opteron workstation either. However it's not designed to play doom. It, like the G5, is designed to use professional multi-processor aware programs. Compare your $700 PC with an iMac.

You underrate the ABIT motherboard in question, and overrate using multiprocessor systems for the sake of using multiprocessor systems.

I was hoping for some tangible responses here; so far, disappointed.

[Engine Joe]

Apparently, your definition of "tangible" is different than everyone else's.

[FallenFromTheTree]

Most of us here have helped many users who are sick to death of Windows issues
and they soon discover that all the crap they were going through was totally unneccesary.

There is some fantastic hardware available out there, but the quality of the best Wintel hardware is STILL crippled by Windows OS.

Until you've worked with Mac OS X none of this will register with someone
who tries to compare a $700 Wintel kit to a dual G5.

The major attraction of Mac OS X is ease of use and improvement in
workflow.

A gaming machine may do well at performing a single task, but when you
start running several intensive applicatons at the same time, that's where
the dual processor machines show their worth.

My suggestion would be to try OS X on something like a mini for a few months,
then if you aren't totally blown away, you can always find a buyer to take it off your
hands.

The upcoming Intel based machines will change many opinions about Apple products
when you can run OS X, Windows or Linux on the same machine.

[BenRoethig]

Most of us here have helped many users who are sick to death of Windows issues
and they soon discover that all the crap they were going through was totally unneccesary.

There is some fantastic hardware available out there, but the quality of the best Wintel hardware is STILL crippled by Windows OS.

Until you've worked with Mac OS X none of this will register with someone
who tries to compare a $700 Wintel kit to a dual G5.

The major attraction of Mac OS X is ease of use and improvement in
workflow.

A gaming machine may do well at performing a single task, but when you
start running several intensive applicatons at the same time, that's where
the dual processor machines show their worth.

My suggestion would be to try OS X on something like a mini for a few months,
then if you aren't totally blown away, you can always find a buyer to take it off your
hands.

The upcoming Intel based machines will change many opinions about Apple products
when you can run OS X, Windows or Linux on the same machine.

Give it up. He doesn't want to listen. In his mind single processor Intel machines running are the ultimate and no amount of truth is going to change that.

[FallenFromTheTree]

This is how I justify the cost of a G5! :D :D :D ;)

[Koodari]

However, I did compare a PC using a very superior motherboard to the Mac. Latency and other problems on Mac motherboards are to be expected, but the Abit boards are quite clean.Latency on motherboards? Answer this - why should I care one bit whether my motherboard has latencies, how my processor is cooled, what sort of timing the memory uses? I, and 95% of all computer users probably, want the computer to be fast and quiet. How this is achieved is irrelevant.

All the motherboard benchmarks I have ever seen at hardware review sites show a maximum of percent or two speed difference between motherboards.
3) Macs are faster, even though benchmarks say otherwiseUh.. my local computer magazine had a small office server review some time ago. They included the Powermac (which they noted is not a "real" server, while the Xserve is) just for kicks. The Powermac absolutely decimated all the "real" servers in a number of web serving tests. It had something like 10x better load bearing. They had to show it in a different graph, because in the same graph with the Powermac, the other servers' graphs were just tiny scribble on the bottom, indistinguishable from one another.So far, #1 is the only coherent reason, and I'm not sure I agree with it. KDE is a very logically consistent desktop; main thing it lacks are the little widgets and stuff from the Mac, but I'm sure some Open Source gurus are working on that now.The problem is indeed reliability and consistency accross the board, not widgets.

For starters, never in four tries have I gotten any of several Linux distros to install on my PC so that all hardware works. This is very mundane hardware, mind you, and not laptop.

Macs run a lot of the important stuff that you get on Windows, and that you get on Linux/BSD. And then there are terrific Mac-only apps. Peripherals work quite well, out of the box. Things like syncing to mobile phone are nonexistant on Linux/BSD, and I have seen it's difficult on Windows as well.

[ezkcdude]

Faster than the G5s in what?

Well, hate to burst your bubble, but the G5's have really not kept pace with Pentiums for the last few years, and this is even true in some significant scientific software packages, such as MATLAB. If you use that program, try running the "bench" (i.e. benchmark routine), and you'll see what I'm talking about. For example, a 3.0 GHz P4 is about 50% faster in this benchmark (FFT, LU, ODE, etc) than a 2.0 GHz dual G5.

I just came back from an engineering conference, where I gave my presentation using a PB G4, and I got all kinds of "Oh, you use Mac?" I said I use it mainly for giving presentations, because of Keynote, which is pretty much true. Very few of these engineers use Macs for doing numerical work. There are some that do imaging, but increasingly, that work is being offloaded to the GPU (graphics card, for neophytes out there), so that the CPU probably won't even matter that much for those types of applications. Anyway, that's my two-bit sense :smokey: .

[FallenFromTheTree]

"Oh you use a Mac"

Yes and you never need worry about adware, spyware, trojans, keyloggers and viruses causing you to risk or loose valuable data.

You might need an update maybe every month or so.

And YES It just works!

And YES

Next year, the new Intel based Mac's will be able to run Mac OS X, Windows and Linux

So yes dammit, I use a Mac! :-)

[ezkcdude]

I think maybe if the Intel-based Macs run faster, more of us geeky engineers with real-world (real-time) needs will do the switcharoo. I have absolutely no loyalty to Windows, and I love OS X, but sometimes you just need your programs to run as fast as possible.

[infoterror]

If you run Windows intelligently, you don't have the spyware etc problems. Junk Internet Explorer and run a firewall - that's practicality.

The machine is as fast as the dual G5, and has some nice motherboard features to boot. I've used OS X and thought its "superiority" was mostly hype - I use KDE for most applications, and think Windows XP classic, KDE, OS X etc. are about on par.

So far, the lack of tangible reasons here has made me nervous... it's that cultlike mentality that made being an Amiga user so difficult in the 1980s.

[FallenFromTheTree]

One has to wonder who drank the stronger koolaid when you include
"running Windows" and "intelligently" in the same sentence :D

[Res]

If you run Windows intelligently, you don't have the spyware etc problems. Junk Internet Explorer and run a firewall - that's practicality.

The machine is as fast as the dual G5, and has some nice motherboard features to boot. I've used OS X and thought its "superiority" was mostly hype - I use KDE for most applications, and think Windows XP classic, KDE, OS X etc. are about on par.

So far, the lack of tangible reasons here has made me nervous... it's that cultlike mentality that made being an Amiga user so difficult in the 1980s.

LOL - Ok, I'll play feed the troll ;) :D

The argument being made that a home built single processor PC is cheaper then a dual processor PowerMac is quite true, but is pointless when comparing Macs to PCs, as the same argument is true when you compare a home built single processor PC against a Brand Name dual processor PC: A single processor PC is cheeper and will often do better on games and benchmarks then dual processor PCs. (Dual processors show their strength on multi-tasking, server environments, etc.)

The price/performance of Apple's high end (2.7GHz dual powermac and such), is quite good and in the same ballpark as the offerings from other brand name computer companies. Anyone saying otherwise are smoking too much crack. :D

Now, if you want to argue that Apple hardware is over priced and inferior to PCs you should attack them where they are weakest: their laptop and consumer offerings. That is where Apple's price/perfomance ratio falls behind PCs. Of course, everyone already knows this (including Apple, which is why they are switching over to Intel) so why bother posting about it?

As to all the operating systems being on par with each other, I simply disagree. I've built numerous PC's and have used Windows 98, Me, 2000, and XP (not to mention linux and BSD unix). I put up with windows for gaming, *nix is good for servers and tolerable for general activities, OS X is not only solid as only a *nix can be, but it is also a wonderful environment to work or play in.

[StevesMom]

One has to wonder who drank the stronger koolaid when you include
"running Windows" and "intelligently" in the same sentence :D

Uh, you're supposed to drink koolaid ? I normally use it for degreasing my car engine.

[Pleroo]

I think people who build their own pcs have as much passion and entusiasm as we Mac buyers do.

Like Mac, most major brand PC builders void contract if you open the case. (HP voids your warranty for changing out your optical drive or adding and internal HD!) So when building your own PC you have to depend on being able to fix it without much help. You know you are taking this risk and are willing to invest the time in troubleshooting the inevitable problems that will come up.

PC builders have a notable advantage. If you stay somewhat up to date with some or any hardware that doesn't drasticly change (ie optical drives, HDs, Monitor, Accessories, pci cards, ethernet, etc.), then all you have to buy are the major components that do change dramaticly (motherboard, processor, etc.). Most hardware is really easy to install in under an hour.

So something cheap like a power supply, or something expensive like a superdrive can follow you through several systems. Why upgrade the parts you are happy with?

As far as MS os's are concerned, you can pay half as much for an upgrade, but you still have to fork the cash every other os.


I eventually (and very happily) switched to Mac because their systems come out of box as dependable as I was (taking lots of time) building my own. This includes the os, which is quite a feat. This allows me more time to take some time away from hardware (hardware is still to fun to forget about) and spend it playing with all the great software.