Puncturing the "PCs Are Cheaper Than Macs" Myth

jcatcw writes "The recently converted Scot Finnie went notebook shopping. At the high end of the notebook spectrum, in order to get comparable power and features, a Dell machine comes in $650 over the Apple, and it was clunkier and weighed more. Sony couldn't beat the Apple either. Midrange and low-end machines, though, turn out to be pretty comparable, with more choices in the PC arena but some good values if you happen to want what Apple has decided you need. So, if you're talking name-brand hardware, it's just no longer the case that PCs are cheaper than Macs."

bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

This really only held true when Macs were primarily desktop machines. The good laptop market has always been expensive.

No competition on the low end

[traindirector]

Scot makes some great points about the high end and even the mid-range, but suggesting that Apple is competitive on the low end is just ludicrous. I'd call the low end $500-$1000. Apple's not even in that market.

This has been true since before the switch to INTC

[nelsonal]

This has been the case for some time, but is masked by Apple's lack of a low end model (so they don't offer things at the sub $500 price point).

The Kilff Note's version...

[iknownuttin]

Figure out what you need and shop around. Don't pass by Apple because you think it's too expensive. You may be surprised that Apple, for the machine you're looking for, is actually more cost effective.

Blah

[stratjakt]

All this shows is that Vaios and Inspirons are way, way overpriced.

Why don't you compare the Mac to something from AOpen, Acer, or even eMachines?

Hell, even Gateway or HP.

They're all just as "similary equipped".

You cant specifically compare overpriced shiny crap to overpriced shiny crap and say you "punctured the myth".

And you can't compare Best Buy's jacked up retail prices to the Apple store. Hop online and see what it would truly cost you, the geek. I don't know where I can get discount Macs online.

Re:No competition on the low end

[QuantumG]

When I say "Macs cost more than PCs" what I actually mean to say is that "Apple isn't in the low end market". Of course, everyone I say the former to understands that I mean the later, except the Apple advocates.

MacBook is a good value

[Zork the Almighty]

Although the new Santa Rosa chipsets make the MacBook less competitive than it was before, overall it is still a good value. For a while there was almost no competition if you wanted a 5 lb. Core 2 Duo laptop w/ 4MB of L2.

Economies of scale

[duffbeer703]

Apple focuses on making only a few models, so they actually get better pricing than their overall sales volume would normally yield. The problem is, large enterprise customers can get quality workstations with 17" LCDs for like $600, smaller ones cost a little more.

When you compare apples to apples (to use a bad pun), their pricing is excellent. The problem is that Apple is very selective about what market segments that they appeal to.

Wow.

[yourOneManArmy]

They compared to Dell and Sony -- both notoriously overpriced. Everyone knows Dell jacks up their prices and releases thousands of coupons to grab a larger range of profits. It's another piece of "news" designed to give /unbiased/ proof of the author's opinion by skewing statistics and using generally unqualified comparisons.

Re:No competition on the low end

[QuantumG]

Hello? We're talking about laptops...

Re:This has been true since before the switch to I

[nine-times]

I think not just their lack of a low end, but a general lack of options. Don't get me wrong, I'm a mac user and I like them, but Dell (for example) has something like 10 very different laptop models, while Apple basically has three models with limited configuration options. Try to go in the Apple store and buy a laptop without a built-in camera. With Dell, you can choose to have XP installed, one of the 20 different versions of Vista, or even (recently added) Ubuntu. With Apple, you get OSX.

Many of their choices are very good, but if you have specific needs, then your needs might not be met by Apple's lineup.

Re:Wow.

[drinkypoo]

They compared to Dell and Sony -- both notoriously overpriced.

Well, who do you suggest they compare to? HP/Compaq's pricing is about the same. I think you're full of shit. Sony is notoriously overpriced, but Dell is typically around the average.

I wouldn't even involve Sony, because everything they make is a pile of crap, at least in the land of computers. I've owned a couple Sonys and worked on more, and I know what I'm talking about. Sony is about the worst manufacturer about providing drivers for newer versions of Windows than what came with the system, too.

And once you get out of the top tier (I hesitate to put Sony there at all, but anyway) the build quality tends to be complete shit. At least Apple is pretty good about this.

Re:No competition on the low end

[drinkypoo]

Hello? The title is Puncturing the "PCs are Cheaper Than Macs" Myth, not Puncturing the "PC laptops are Cheaper Than Mac laptops" Myth. I realize the latter won't fit into slashdot's anemic subject field, but seriously.

Dell Discount

[WarwickRyan]

If you compare Dell's standard prices, then you may well find Apple hardware at a similar price.

However, you're ignoring the fact the Dell regularly have fantastic offers. When I bought my current laptop, the Dell standard price was £500. However, I paid £350 thanks to their special offers.

I'd like a Macbook (assuming I can install XP on one) as they're pretty machines which appear to have a better resale value than Dells..

Re:Horrible Comparisons!

[Logger]

The comparison is not bogus, the author explicitly stated he was comparing Macs to brand name PCs. Home built PCs being cheaper doesn't disprove his assertion. Your same home built PC is cheaper than brand name PCs too.

He also states that if your needed specs fall outside of what Apple offers, you will get a better deal on a PC. Needing to build it yourself definitely falls outside of Apple's offerings. However, if you need to buy a mid-high end brand name box, then his point is valid. And he clearly states this criteria in the article.

He does not have to be wrong about Apple vs. Dell, for you to be right about DIY vs. Dell.

Re:No competition on the low end

[sacrilicious]

When I say "Macs cost more than PCs" what I actually mean to say is that "Apple isn't in the low end market". Of course, everyone I say the former to understands that I mean the later, except the Apple advocates.

I think they (or anyone) could be forgiven for not understanding what you mean. If I can buy 1 pound of sugar for $1 at Safeway, or 100 pounds of sugar for $2 at Costco, and a friend asked me whether Safeway or Costco had cheaper sugar, it'd be negligent+misleading of me to simply answer "Safeway".

Re:Imagine...

[dave420]

That'd be a great argument, if Macs came with the same hardware choice as you get with non-Apple PCs. As it is, Apple hardware is limited, they have greater lead-times in rolling out new devices (WUXGA screens and 7200rpm 160GB disks on notebooks are a GREAT example, not to mention the choice of graphics cards, the new Turbo Memory thing from Intel, etc. etc.). They're not even comparable. And as for your trolling about spyware and popups, those are not even a problem for most people. And if they want to play games, then there is really no choice, no matter how great Parallels is, it's still not the same as running the OS on the machine itself. "Boot camp!" I hear you cry, well, then you've got to shell out for Windows on top of the price of the Mac, and hope it delivers drivers suitable to use your hardware.

- If you're not wanting to spend top-dollar, non-Apple PCs are far cheaper.
- There *are* fewer applications for Apple computers, which is to be expected as they don't command the market-share of, say, Windows
- They are *different* to use, and if you're used to Windows, that means you have a learning curve to climb, which implies work just to use the computer
- See above
- They do use one-button mice, on the notebooks at least, and the "mighty mouse" is not exactly a two-buttoned mouse if you keep a finger on the right mouse button. Again, something you have to get used to. Or you can buy another mouse, again, more money.
- Apple computers are just as secure as everything else on the market if used properly. Apple doesn't have a magic bullet against trojan horses, it just isn't that big of a target for hackers. As the market share grows, that will become a problem.

Ignorance IS bliss, my friend. You've just demonstrated the other side of the coin ;)

Why Apple doesn't have a $500 notebook...

[WIAKywbfatw]

I'm sure that Apple could go after the low end market but It's my belief that Apple intentionally avoids doing that for a number of reasons.

1. Margins at the lowest end of the market are thin if not razor thin. Certainly profit per unit isn't great, so each of these sold would mean a minimal profit, perhaps not even enough over the long term to justify any R&D, marketing and support.

2. Such a model would surely detract from sales of Apple's mid-range notebooks, as there would be a significant proportion of buyers who opted for the cheapest possible portable MacOS solution that they could lay there hands on. So, a low end model would, to some extent, cost Apple revenue, as it cannibalised sales from other, more profitable Apple notebooks.

3. Cheaper products sometimes (but not always) require corners to be cut. Apple's image (to the public) is one of quality as well as simplicity, and a low end model would perhaps change that image in a way that wouldn't suit it. Certainly Apple would not want people's first experience of the brand to be a negative one, and a low end notebook computer (from any manufacturer) is certainly the sort of product that is likely to disappoint rather than meet or exceed the average user's expectations.

The bottom line is that Apple just doesn't need to go chasing that segment of the market when doing so has so many cons and so few pros.

Re:This has been true since before the switch to I

[bkr1_2k]

Sure, you should purchase based on your needs. The problem with that statement, is that this article isn't about what Apple provides that Dell et al don't, it's about the FUD that Apple computers (comparably equipped) are more expensive than PCs. That's simply not true, at least in the laptop market.

Yes Dell has a lot of options. Having 30 options with 28 of them being for a market I'm not in is no better than having 3 options with 1 of them being for a market I'm not in. I'd also wager that because Dell has so many options, people simply pick the one that's listed as a "special" more often than not, because they simply don't give a damn what is inside. It's no different for Apple users, for the most part. They just want it to work with the applications they want to run. Giving them an extra 20 choices won't really matter.

Re:No competition on the low end

[dcclark]

Almost every time one of my non-tech savvy friends is looking for a laptop, I ask if they've looked at Macs. I then, without fail, hear "Macs are more expensive than PC's", and after a few questions, it always turns out that what they have actually found is, "I was looking for cheap laptops, and Apple doesn't make anything in the $500-$1000 range". But, that's not the end of the story. Most of my non-tech savvy friends interpret Apple's low-end laptops ($1100) as being equivalent to a low-end PC laptop ($600). Thus, they think that Macs really do cost $500 more than equivalent PC laptops. These are not the kind of people who carefully compare specs, hard drive size and RPMs, processor speed (mostly they still think Macs are slower too), graphics sets, the value of bundled software, service and repair reputation, etc. They just look at price on a few manufacturers that they've always dealt with.

So no, many people do not understand that Apple has no low-end. They actually think that all PC makers have the same low end, and that the only difference is price.

How the hell do YOU decide what computer to buy?

[argent]

I don't know about you, but I tot up the stuff that's important to me, and look for something that gives me those features.

So I don't care if adding a video camera to a Wintel laptop would put it over the mark or not, because I wouldn't buy a laptop with a built in video camera. That feature has no value to me.

I don't care if making a PC as small as a Mac mini costs $100 more, that has no value to me.

But I do care if the GPU in my computer does native 3d OpenGL or not.

So when I look at laptops, the cheapest acceptable model from Apple is the 15" Macbook Pro. An acceptable model from Lenovo is around $1250. If I'm going to put up with the GMA950 I can get a decent laptop for $750.

Tricking out a Thinkpad T-series (what I'd be using if I could get OS X for it) with everything I actually care about in my Macbook Pro would cost me $1800.

On the other hand, there's no amount of money I can pay to Apple to get me a Macbook with a Thinkpad keyboard.

See... the ONLY way you get Apple's products looking as cheap as Wintel version is by demanding everything that the Mac provides be included in the PC, but completely discounting the value of anything that comes with the PC that the Mac doesn't include.

* Contoured keyboard.
* Two trackpad buttons.
* Ultrabay.
* Trackpoint mouse.
* Docking port.

The only way I can see to get a Macbook that's comparable to a Thinkpad would be to get someone to build you a custom case, a-la the Modbook. What? That's ridiculous? Then why isn't demanding a built-in camera ridiculous? You can't have it both ways... either handicap BOTH sides equally, or don't treat EITHER as a requirements spec.

Re:No competition on the low end

[Achromatic1978]

Of course, it's misleading then to claim it's a low-end machine. With the combo drive, 2GB ram, and still only the 80gig drive, it's now at $1,049, and still no display. Not low-end.

Re:No competition on the low end

[QuantumG]

Was there any need for a retarded analogy? What's hard to understand here? PCs are available for less money than Macs.. that's what *everyone* means when they say something is cheaper than something else. The only people who do a "gee, if I buy the top end model I can get it cheaper from Apple" are people who are trying to justify paying more for a PC. Shit, the low end machines have more grunt than any normal person requires anyway.. there's simply no justification for buying a high end machine unless you are doing something more than word processing and surfing the web.

One more thing...

[dave420]

... OS X isn't keyboard-friendly. Even with the option turned on to extend the tabbing to all UI components, it still doesn't extend it to all of them. I primarily use the keyboard when I'm working, as being a developer, I have my hands on the keyboard to do my work. Switching one to the mouse to select a drop-down makes me less productive. Also alt-tabbing is fantastically swift on Windows, allowing me to switch between documents and not just applications. There are apps on OS X that can make that more like Windows, but even so they're just not as quick. I've used OS X for months and months (being a contractor in London I happened across lots of offices who loved using macs, and working on their hardware I had to use one), and every time I use it, I notice how much it's slowing me down. I'm not a fan-boy of any camp. I use what I can to get the job done in as quick a time as possible. As it currently stands (I'm not discounting Apple's ability to change, believe me), OS X isn't at the top of the list for keyboard-preferring users like myself.

Re:No competition on the low end

[MoxFulder]

Actually, Apple competes with their Mac Mini. ($599 and up)

Um... are you kidding me?? For $430, Dell will sell you an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (smokes the Mac Mini's core solo), with twice the RAM, twice the HD, and a 19" monitor included: http://edealinfo.com/dealsearch/Controller.php [edealinfo.com]

Oh, and it's easily upgradable. If having a tiny brick-sized computer is what you want, get a Mac Mini--though I'd prefer an HP Slimline, personally--but don't pretend that the Mac Mini is actually a good value at the low end.

Re:Blah

[MoxFulder]

Alternatively grab your emachines POS, then sit for 18 months wondering what kind of asshole company makes a laptop without a firewire port.

Lesseee... why do I need a firewire port on a laptop? My last laptop had one. It was *the only* port I NEVER used, in 5 years of using that thing literally to death. For external storage, I use USB 2.0. It's not *quite* as fast as Firewire (especially under MacOS, funny enough), but you can get USB enclosures for literally $5-10 today. If you really need massive amounts of external storage then, um... why use a laptop?

I suppose if I did digital video I might want firewire. But I don't. And frankly, I don't see any other good reason to use Firewire today.

Re:Horrible Comparisons!

[EastCoastSurfer]

Not to flame, but have you worked in any business? The larger a business is the less likely they are to have anything home built. They are also less likely to start messing with their hardware in any significant fashion. Over the years working in big business I've seen RAM added to servers and HDs replaced when they failed in arrays. The last thing any of the techs want to deal with are randomly built DIY machines.

Not according to my research.

[mark-t]

A entry level Mac laptop runs for about $1250 retail from the computer store near where I live. For the same price I can buy a PC laptop with more than double the storage and a larger monitor and still have $300 or more left over to buy accessories. The performance is only marginally lower on the choice of most of the PC laptops that I noticed were available (in fact, I only saw one PC laptop in the store that had at least equivalent performance to the mac laptop based on the CPU type and speed, and although it was significantly more expensive than the entry-level mac laptop, it also came with significantly higher specs in other areas such as storage and built-in accessories). And to top it all off, the entry-level mac laptop doesn't even have a writeable DVD drive with it, where I was unable to spot a single new PC laptop that didn't come with one. Okay... so all the PC laptops they sell come with Vista, but hey, you can always put Linux or BSD on them.

Re:Dell != PC

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize your paying the Apple tax right?

I have a powerbook BTW.

Re:No competition on the low end

[plover]

Yes, but your non-tech savvy friends who are in the market for $500-$1000 laptops are there because they can't tell the difference. They most likely use them for web browsing, word processing, email, spreadsheets, slide shows and the occasional game of solitaire. For people like that, price is the single most important factor. For that kind of user an $1100 machine is $600 of waste if a $500 machine can do the same job, regardless of whether it's a PC or a Mac.

If you were to explain Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) to them, how they won't have virus and worm problems and porno-popups, and will have fewer updates, and how everything typically just works better together, they might be more inclined to consider a Mac. But really, purchase price is most likely going to remain their most important focus.

Re:No competition on the low end

[kalaf]

That's a completely meaningless comparison. Higher end PCs cost more $/power. I need to check my email and browse the web, should I get a $400 dollar brand X laptop or spend $1000 on something almost twice as powerful? Whether or not you think the $1000 one is a better deal doesn't really matter if they only need the $400 one. That applies to Dell laptops as much as it does to Apple.

I will recommend Dell or Apple on occasion, but that's usually to people with lots of money and little technological savvy. AKA people I don't want to support.

That said, there is a low end Apple on the market. I picked up a well equipped G4 last year for $150...

This is because you can no longer comparison shop.

[maillemaker]

>These are not the kind of people who carefully compare specs, hard drive size and RPMs, processor speed
>(mostly they still think Macs are slower too), graphics sets, the value of bundled software, service
>and repair reputation, etc. They just look at price on a few manufacturers that they've always dealt with.

This is logical and understandable. Look, I've got a BS in Computer Science, and I long ago lost track of the processor race. I used to be a hardware junkie. I could rattle off the 8086, 80286, 80386, 80386SX (no math coprocessor), 486, and 486SX, in all the MHz flavors. But then, rather than keep with a logical way of identifying processors, the manufacturers switched to trademark-able names. Pentium. Itanium. Opteron. Dual Core. Quad Core. Shit even MHz aren't meaningful much anymore. Shopping for a computer has become an exhaustive research project. Most people aren't up for it.

You know how I shop for computers nowadays? About every five years I go into Best Buy and look for the most expensive eMachine on the isle. I buy that one. I don't have the time or inclination to ferret out what makes one PC better than the next - I figure the price tag will tell me that.

But if I'm shopping for a bargain PC (like when I bought one for my Mom who only does email on a dial-up connection), then I go looking for the lowest-priced unit on the shelf, and work up in price until I reach the limit of what I'm willing to spend.

I bought a new notebook computer for my wife a few weekends ago. I was pleased to discover that inside Vista there is a "performance index" or somesuch where the software grades the performance of the computer on a 1-5 (I think) scale. I went down the isle of computers, running the index on each one, and made my decision that way.

The bottom line is, it is very difficult to examine and understand the performance characteristics of computer systems when you are in the market to buy one. I think this has been intensionally obfuscated by the manufacturers to make consumers have more of an ear towards marketing than technical details.

Re:No competition on the low end

[0100010001010011]

I want to build media center. How quiet is that dell? Does it fit on my book shelf?

My mom wants a computer she can fit on her tiny desk, does the Dell do that?

The Mini is more expensive because it uses a laptop hard drive and laptop ram. It's basically a headless laptop.

I could Build a desktop using Free after rebate cases and power supplies, cheap HD and it'll sound like a wind tunnel (and my debian machine does, that's why it sits in the closet.) That's not what the Mac Mini aspires to be and that's not the market it is sold to.

Re:No competition on the low end

[Yaztromo]

Um... are you kidding me?? For $430, Dell will sell you an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (smokes the Mac Mini's core solo)

Apple hasn't sold a mini with a Core Solo in nearly a year. They're all Core Duos [apple.com] these days.

Please get with the times.

Yaz.

Re:Not true anymore

[Enrique1218]

From the article

On the other hand, if you search the Windows side first, you'll quickly discover machines that -- in features and price -- fit in between the Mac SKUs. And in those niches, they represent very good values. So there's one answer to the question of whether Macs or Windows represent a better value: If one of those "in between" PCs suits your needs best, you'd be paying an unnecessary premium to get a Mac instead.

He is referring to you genius. -1 redundant, RTFA, and actually comprehend it.

Re:No competition on the low end

[jedidiah]

Except that's not even necessarily true.

Laptops are a great illustration of that. This article goes to great lengths to labor over the fact that the default chosen laptop line doesn't have the fastest laptop cpu available as an option and also has a laundry list of other features that the user may or may not want.

It's not that Apple doesn't address the lowend of the market. They don't address anything but the top end of the market.

The user not married to apple can make a few compromises and come out of it with a remarkably cheaper machine that has all of the relevant features (as opposed to all of the bulletpoints). THAT is what people mean when they say PCs are cheaper than Macs.

Got a feature that you can't use or even understand? Don't pay for it.

Re:Not true anymore

[jedidiah]

No, he read the article.

He just realizes that the author clearly glosses over that fact and then continues to bludgeon the reader his personal biases and agenda.

No wonder H1Bs are needed

[ghoul]

If this guy has a BS in Computers and needs Vista performance index to decide what computer to buy I seriously doubt the quality of a US education. No wonder we need H1Bs to come and run our companies. But seriously I think hes bluffing - noone with a real CS degree is that stupid. Its this kind of talk which gives US Engineers a bad rep.

Re:Mid-range macbook cheaper than a Dell? Ha!

[alphaseven]

That Dell might not the best comparison, it's a lot bigger (208 cubic inches vs 120 cubic inches for the macbook) and almost a pound heavier, no wonder it's cheaper.

Re:No wonder H1Bs are needed

[ghoul]

Anyone with a BS even in Biology or Geology or anything not even remotely connected to computers has spent 4 years at college, done numerous assignments for which they have had to look up information from sources like libraries, textbooks,notes and nowadays websites. Such a person is more than capable of doing some online research to figure out which is better from the various benchmarks available online. If you are not and really do have a BS I have to conclude you spent your entire 4 years only at keg parties and never submitted an honest assignment. Either you were on a football scholarship (do you get football scholarships for CS?) or your daddy made a large contribution to the college to get you your BS.

Re:Maybe Apple should consider licensing OS/X agai

[arminw]

.....Apple has terrible hardware/driver support.....

They support everything THEY make. Everything 99% of users need is built into their computers. So what if they don't support your no-name video card or special cell phone gizmo? Get support from the gadget maker and if they don't support it on a Mac, get a windows PC and cross your fingers that they do. If you use Linux, probably a fervent prayer to the computer gods won't help either.

Re:Not true anymore

[merreborn]

It's the same story here. Three of our developers (including myself) have been lifelong windows users. The last mac I'd used, personally, was a early 1990s Performa.

All three of us bought macbooks for personal use, independently. I can't speak for the other two, but personally, the choice was largely driven by the fact that I'd had a *terrible* experience with HP laptops in the year leading up to that purchase -- the hardware was just poorly designed and assembled -- in the last year, I've seen two HP machines fall apart.

I'm not huge on MacOS. I really hate some of the things it does. I've never even opened up any of the iLife apps, other than iTunes. I didn't buy this thing for the Mac experience. I bought it 'cause it was the best hardware I could get for the price.

It's small. It's light. It's got great battery life (I get *at least* 3 hours, if not 5). It goes into, and comes out of sleep mode instantly. It has a decent integrated graphics chip, which means it plays 3D games far better than my old $1k HP laptop ever did -- and let me tell you, it is *hard* to find a $1100 laptop with decent integrated graphics and a gig of ram. And the magsafe power connector is guaranteed not to fail like the power connector on my HP did (the socket came loose from the motherboard).

I couldn't give two shits about the whole mac lifestyle thing. It was quality hardware at a competitive price.

Re:Not true anymore

[fermion]

Why does apple care about your $650 dollar sale? Does it generate the 20% profit? Does it contribute to thier image as a high end computer maker?

This is not a flame. The low end computer market is very crowded, and no reputable computer maker can make a truly quality machine at that price. Even at higher prices, it is difficult. The low end computer market does not generate a profit, and depends on the MS monopoly. It is beneficial to MS to have cheap computers, and the deals to generate those cheap computer are on record.

It is actually unreasonable for anyone who just wants a cheap computer to buy a mac, just like it is unreasonable for anyone who just want cheap stuff to shop at, say Target. MS and Walmart are both cheaper options, and those who are buying solely on price tend to visit them. OTOH, both are trying to become more upscale, but the stigma of being the cheap option are hurting the effort. Why would Apple want tarnish it's image by competing at the low end? They can' win. Just look at Kmart and WalMart, or cadillac and all the other American car marks. Instead of innovating and keeping standards relitivly high, very high in the case of cadillac, they just tried to do the same old same old, respond to price, and look how it came out. KMart is all but non existent, and all the American car makers are done to the level of junk stock status. Diamler basically paid to get rid of Chrysler.

For certain machines, the Mac is cheaper. Most of the PCs I use right now could have been bought at around the same price for a Mac. On the low end, when equally configured, many PCs are more expensive than the Mac. However, that is not the point as one thing Apple does is configure machines that will run well, not just get the customer out the door.

Re:Imagine...

[merreborn]

- There *are* fewer applications for Apple computers, which is to be expected as they don't command the market-share of, say, Windows
- They are *different* to use, and if you're used to Windows, that means you have a learning curve to climb, which implies work just to use the computer

If that's a problem for you, install bootcamp.

Re:To the average person

[doh123]

your right that the Mac mini is like over a year old with no updates or price changes and is way overpriced... but thats it. Your comments on the Mac Pro show you do not know much about "workstation" level hardware... you even admit it wasn't a dual socket board you used...Which means you didnt even price how much a Xeon system would cost.

Sure you can build a highly specific machine that meets your individual needs usually cheaper than buying a pre-made system... but thats about all you proved pricing out your parts at newegg... nothing to do with Apple. The Mac Pro is even cheaper than Dell workstations with similiar configuration.

People get upset about Apple being "overpriced" not because they are, but because they simply do not understand that Apple has no want to compete in all areas of the market. They take Apple machines focused at a different area of the market and try to fit it into their comparisons. Apple really doesn't want everyones business... if you want to custom build a machine with the exact parts you want... you know what... Apple does NOT want your business at all...

Re:Maybe Apple should consider licensing OS/X agai

[AdamWeeden]

You can go even further than that. At work where I deploy software to around 1500 Windows boxes, we have gotten quite a few Macs. So about a month ago I got a nice iMac on my desk to learn so I could do the same for our Macs. After taking a Mac class and playing around I was beginning to enjoy it. After finding Parallels I'm going to buy a Mac. If I can run any OS X app and any windows app (including games) why would I choose anything else?

Re:This is because you can no longer comparison sh

[John Jamieson]

Fine, I'll bite.

OK, so you have more money than you know what to do with, and you really don't care about computers?

It takes about 15 minutes to an hour to find a REALLY smart person or good website to tell you what to look for. Thats what saved many people from buying a P4 instead of the better Core or Athlon 64 processors.

If you do the homework, you might have even find out that the Vista "Performance Index" is close to useless.

I would actually find a person who knows every nuance of every processor, etc, and have them just go and buy the PC for me if I were in your place. They will do a heck of a better job than you can by "buying the most expensive E-machine"