Just don't give a rat's *ss

[Bruce Lee, PhD]

OK.

Obviously, I like Apple for the software. I mean, I spent over $2500 for a machine with a g4 processor in it. So either I'm a moron (possible), or I place a *lot* of value in OS X and Apple software.

So why don't I get excited at all about what turned out to be basically a software-only keynote? I'll probably code to the new imaging API's, and Apple usually does a great job with their internals. It'll be fun.

And I love my Powerbook. But I'm still watching and drooling for the new hardware. I'm swilling my lite beer and drawling, "Gimme somethin' wit' a hemi, dude!"

How many of us would buy Apple hardware if we could run Apple software on generic Intel parts from Crap-o-tron? Be honest... A lot of us would, no doubt about it. I think for a lot of us, it's about the software with Apple. But still, who cares about a software-only show? Not me.

Go figure.

[DeadEye686]

I don't mind the Keynote - it was a developer's conference, not a consumer one. The only hardware that could possibly have been released would have been professional - and they just had an update not three weeks before. I didn't really expect any hardware announcements, but I did pray a bit :) (Actually, I prayed for the Newton II, but I knew that wasn't going to happen.)

[Makosuke]

Actually, I'm quite satisfied. This being a developer conference, I wasn't expecting a G5 iMac or anything consumer oriented (that'd be silly) and the G5s and PBs were just updated. Beefy monitors and a preview of the next OS version--the former hardware developers might enjoy, and the latter central to their business--is right on target.

Personally, since an OS upgrade and a new monitor are the only two Apple products I'm in the market for anyway, I'm happy.

As for the age-old "Apple software on generic PC hardware" argument, I'm not with you. Yes, I could build an Intel box from parts for less than an Apple machine, but the current G5s, even with the 90nm hurdles, are still faster than any non-workstation class x86 hardware available and at a competitive or superior price.

And you can bet if OSX ran on any pile of PC parts under the sun there'd be even more compatibility problems than there already are, and Apple'd spend a whole lot more time and money trying to get everything to work. Why do you think (other than aging codebase full of holes) it's taking MS so long to produce Longhorn?

[Chip NoVaMac]

I don't mind the Keynote - it was a developer's conference, not a consumer one. The only hardware that could possibly have been released would have been professional - and they just had an update not three weeks before. I didn't really expect any hardware announcements, but I did pray a bit :) (Actually, I prayed for the Newton II, but I knew that wasn't going to happen.)

As it being a developers conference there should have been more definitive hardware than monitors. New iMac G5's to drive higher performance software. Video iPod to develop Mac software add-ons for the current G4's. A TIVO Mac device that crosses the boundaries. These are the things developers would want to write for. New monitors that few can afford? Not likely.

[Bruce Lee, PhD]

Actually, I'm quite satisfied. This being a developer conference, I wasn't expecting a G5 iMac or anything consumer oriented (that'd be silly) and the G5s and PBs were just updated. Beefy monitors and a preview of the next OS version--the former hardware developers might enjoy, and the latter central to their business--is right on target.


Yeah, no doubt that's the rational way to go. But at some gut level, aren't you disappointed? I am; that's what surprises me. I mean, I like Apple for the software. The main reason I switched was the fact that I got a BSD machine for doing coding *and* a great GUI for everything else. But I'm still bummed when they don't roll out hardware, even if it's stuff I wouldn't buy.

Maybe it's these rumors sites getting me all excited about nothing. Curse you, MacRumors!

[Ryan1524]

i think this keynote was better than the Panther one. it introduces a lot of cool stuff that can fundamentally change the way we compute. Panther's only real crazy thing is Expose. the rest is pretty ho-hum.

this time, we got Search, Automator, Dashboard(yea it's Konfab, but the way it's integrated to Expose is nice - like having a virtual desktop with infos when you need a quick update), then there's H.264, new iChat, etc..

overall, enjoyable keynote. i like it. :)

[iGav]

As it being a developers conference there should have been more definitive hardware than monitors. New iMac G5's to drive higher performance software. Video iPod to develop Mac software add-ons for the current G4's. A TIVO Mac device that crosses the boundaries. These are the things developers would want to write for. New monitors that few can afford? Not likely.

iMac G5's wouldn't need to be announced at a WWDC as these developers are already developing for the G5. ;) It's more vital that should an iMac G5 be announced that it should be in a consumer based Keynote or during a special dedicated event. ;) to give it maximum exposure. :)

The expectations on Apple to release EVERYTHING during a Keynote are impossibly high... it's totally unfeasible to expect that Apple will ALWAYS announces new hardware whenever Jobs steps on the stage.

[iGav]

Maybe it's these rumors sites getting me all excited about nothing. Curse you, MacRumors!

It's not necessarily Macrumors that is the problem... it's some of the users that frequent the site with inane ramblings that cause the discontent (no one in particular) when the subsequent rumourware isn't announced :eek: :p :p

but really, the only hardware update options were likely to be either the iMac or iPod, neither of which I could see being updated at a Developers conference. The iPod will (unless there's fundamental changes) have a non-event update such as an increase in HD size.

If it's a new form factor, or something like a colour screen etc then it'll deserve it's own consumer presentation such is its popularity. The same goes for the iMac, if it gains a G5 and/or a possible new form factor, then doesn't it warrant an event with more publicity and more focus than the WWDC?? I think so.

Afterall, you can't please everyone. :rolleyes:

[slughead]

How many of us would buy Apple hardware if we could run Apple software on generic Intel parts from Crap-o-tron? Be honest...

I just ordered a dual 2.5 Ghz G5 which is like 10% faster than a dual AMD (top of the line), and twice as expensive for the same quality/features at street price.

Being as how apple uses almost all the same quality components as are available on the street (sometimes they even use bad quality stuff), I'd have to say I'd be comfortable with ditching apple hardware any day of the week.

I mean, maxtor and quantum hard drives? Apple, are you on crack?

The RAM timings being non-standard are also incredibly petty (I feel they do this on purpose).

Do I trust my PC with an Athlon XP 3200? Oh yes, possibly even more than my mac. Did it cost less? 1/4 as much.

My Asus A7N8X-X has on-board HARDWARE SATA RAID and cost me $120.. That's the price of a keyboard and mouse from Apple. My case cost $70 retail, it has room for 12 drives (eight are 3.5 only), full shielding (no cost-shaving n00b-windows), 5 80mm fans with thermostats (for that G5 "low noise" cooling™©), and a high-quality 450 watt Antec PSU.

The OS is the only reason I put up with paying *Obviously* too much for hardware. Windows ruins the usefulness of my hardware, however much better it is than my mac hardware.

The only reason Apple laptops are a good deal is because you can't build one from scratch--it's all proprietary.

[slughead]

As for the age-old "Apple software on generic PC hardware" argument, I'm not with you. Yes, I could build an Intel box from parts for less than an Apple machine, but the current G5s, even with the 90nm hurdles, are still faster than any non-workstation class x86 hardware available and at a competitive or superior price.

It's too bad Powermacs aren't PCs, and are actually workstations.

Unless this computer is considered a PC, which I'm willing to accept :)

$1,656.09
Thunder K8QS Quad Opteron Mobo (with more features than the G5 one, including SATA RAID and holds 20GB of DDR RAM in 10 slots, Dual Gigabit LAN)
http://www.axiontech.com/product/images/3/62713/62713_M.jpg

$677 (x4) = $2,708
Four Opteron 842 Processors

$126 (x9) = $1,134
1GB RAM x 9 = 9GB (1GB more than the G5 holds, and with 1 slot to spare)

$398
BFG Tech's GeForce FX 6800 256MB (modified to go faster than standard)

$159 (x2) = $318
Dual WD 250GB hard drives (instead of maxtor which SUCKS)

~$150 for A equivalent SATA DVD burner
~$70 for an EXCELLENT case and PSU
~$45 for an equivalent sound card

$6,320 For this beast

$8,495 For the Apple, which is slower and has less features:
• Dual 2.5GHz PowerPC G5
• 8GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 8x1GB
• 2x250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
• NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL
• 8x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
• Mac OS X - U.S. English

Oh woops, apple also charges sales tax in all states that have one, at 7%, that's $9089.65

[oingoboingo]

The OS is the only reason I put up with paying *Obviously* too much for hardware. Windows ruins the usefulness of my hardware, however much better it is than my mac hardware.

I don't know what you're going to use that hardware for, but since you a) feel very strongly about being ripped off for Apple's hardware and b) don't want to run Windows, have you thought about running Linux? What do you use your computer for? Is Linux a viable alternative to Mac OS X for you? Too often x86 hardware is automatically lumped into the same basket as Windows in these forums...Linux solves 99% of the problems that many perceive to be issues with the x86 platform itself, which in reality are problems with Windows.

Please don't tell me you bought a dual 2.5GHz G5 to run iPhoto :)

[slughead]

Please don't tell me you bought a dual 2.5GHz G5 to run iPhoto :)

LOL no, I'd run linux on a PC but I need access to commercial written drivers and software. In addition, I already own much mac software. I also think the Mac OS GUI is the best around.

Between all that I'm uncomfortably boxed into Mac-[Lock]-In-tosh, but if that's the price I have to pay to get my work done, then so be it--it's still technically worth it.

I'm just saying Apple hardware is a DOWNSIDE to working with Apple. The OS is the only thing they have that I want.

[7on]

Apple sticks with their hardware so they don't have to bundle upteen millions of drivers. Which I like. And I'd buy Apple hardware even if they released x86 OSX. Because I wouldn't have driver problems.

[slughead]

Apple sticks with their hardware so they don't have to bundle upteen millions of drivers. Which I like. And I'd buy Apple hardware even if they released x86 OSX. Because I wouldn't have driver problems.

Like most windows devices, drivers are written and included with the hardware. It is the manufacturer's job to create and package the drivers, not Apple. Most will follow a generic spec (like most CD-ROMs and HIDs do), but generally the full functionality requires a driver download from the company or included CD.

3rd party devices are already available for OS X, and drivers are required for most of those. It's not a problem.

Apple could just package its own drivers to persuade people to buy their hardware. Instead they buy out and stamp out the competition.

Why does apple want you to buy their hardware? Because that's where they make their money.

I wouldn't be surprised if they lost money on every OS release since 10.1.

[win_convert]

Apple can be likened to the new kid at school who has to keep coming out with new stuff or risk being forgotten and having to hang out with nerds(where analogy becomes fact!) All of the .x increases are juggling, balancing on your hands and having a large amount of scabs.
The bullies, ie microsoft can feel comfortable in the fact that once the novelty wears off of the new stuff, people will come crawling back to them for cheap stuff (having their lunch money stolen, if you will).

Or whatever.

[gekko513]

$6,320 For this beast

$8,495 For the Apple, which is slower and has less features:
• Dual 2.5GHz PowerPC G5
• 8GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 8x1GB
• 2x250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
• NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL
• 8x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
• Mac OS X - U.S. English


$9,685* For the Dell, which is slower and has even less features (but DDR2 and PCI Express):
- Dual 3,6GHz Xeon
- 8GB DDR2 400 (Actually only able to customize with 4GB, but there is room for 8GB and 4GB additional RAM from Dell is $2000)
- 2x250GB SATA
- 256MB Quadro FX 3400
- 8xDVD+RW

You always have to pay more for a complete system that is tested and supported by a large company (Apple, Dell, HP, whatever). So it's useless to throw in the cost of individual parts.

[gekko513]

$126 (x9) = $1,134
1GB RAM x 9 = 9GB
Where do you get 1GB DDR400 RAM for $126 ???

[thecombatwombat]

$126 (x9) = $1,134
1GB RAM x 9 = 9GB (1GB more than the G5 holds, and with 1 slot to spare)

$159 (x2) = $318
Dual WD 250GB hard drives (instead of maxtor which SUCKS)

~$150 for A equivalent SATA DVD burner
~$70 for an EXCELLENT case and PSU
~$45 for an equivalent sound card


OK, no one's really going to dispute (i think at least) that pcs are often cheaper than apple, especially if you build them yourself.

But let me poke a few holes in your setup anyways.

If you can get ram for that cheap, and building it yourself is not the issue, then just put that 8 gigs in yourself. Apple ram is crazy expensive. Yikes, you just cut roughly $3500 from the apple system (sub $4650 dropping your config to 512, then buying 8 gigs at your low price for roughly $1000) and it still has 8 gigs.


That alone makes it cheaper than your pc.

Plus, $70 for an equivalent case/ps? Not really wanting to debate it, but I'd think at least a ~$150 lian-li and a high quality psu, easily $200.

Also, please show me a $40 sound card with optical outputs.

Your box also comes with no keyboard and mouse . . . or support and warranty for that matter.

Oh, and your hard drives, like the ram, if building labor/warranty isn't a factor, get the cheapy config from apple, put your maxtors in yourself. This way the system is a solid few grand less than your Opteron.

I'm not in total disagreement with you, but still, your scenario is a little slanted.

EDIT: One more thing since I just noticed you said you wouldn't be running Linux. Have your priced a four processor, commercial x86 operating system recently?

[slughead]

If you can get ram for that cheap, and building it yourself is not the issue, then just put that 8 gigs in yourself. Apple ram is crazy expensive. Yikes, you just cut roughly $3500 from the apple system (sub $4650 dropping your config to 512, then buying 8 gigs at your low price for roughly $1000) and it still has 8 gigs.

Apple screws with its timings to prevent you from using anything but specialized RAM, which is only mildly cheaper via 3rd party than the apple store. Truth be told, half the price of the mac is the RAM, and a 'mild' price reduction is probably going to make a big difference. However, it'd have to be 1/3 the cost in order to have the cost usurp my PC's

Plus, $70 for an equivalent case/ps? Not really wanting to debate it, but I'd think at least a ~$150 lian-li and a high quality psu, easily $200.

First off, I said EXCELLENT, not equivalent, I even said it in all caps.. Second, where are you getting your numbers from? I get mine from http://www.pricewatch.com ... a $200 PSU?? is it gold plated?

Your box also comes with no keyboard and mouse . . . or support and warranty for that matter.

All of those parts have a warranty of some sort. Maybe not as good as apple's included 1 year, and definitely not as good as applecare.

No keyboard and mouse? You want me to include a keyboard and mouse better than the G5's? You think that'd be hard?
http://www.pricewatch.com/1/311/10732-1.htm
$35 Mouse, way more DPI, a scroll wheel, and two buttons
http://www.pricewatch.com/2/310/809-1.htm
$11 keyboard, better make/model than the mac one.

Oh, and your hard drives, like the ram, if building labor/warranty isn't a factor, get the cheapy config from apple, put your maxtors in yourself. This way the system is a solid few grand less than your Opteron.

First of all, like I said, Maxtors suck. Second, the biggest cost of my scenario is the motherboard and processors. You really, REALLY don't want to compare cheapo systems with PCs. Third, buying 3rd party HDs wouldn't make enough of a difference.

If I didn't want to show a system faster than the G52.5, I could build something slightly slower for $2,500 less.

Also, depending on your measure of speed, I could use the latter system to power DUAL FX6800's, and it'd still be cheaper than the G5.

I just noticed you said you wouldn't be running Linux. Have your priced a four processor, commercial x86 operating system recently?

I never said that, we're talking about hardware, I already said the OS is the only reason I buy mac. Someone said Mac hardware was cheaper/comparable and better, I begged to differ.

Also, please show me a $40 sound card with optical outputs.

First off, I said $45. Second, here you go :):
http://www.compuplus.com/insidepage.php3?refer=pricewatch.com&id=1002397

Where do you get 1GB DDR400 RAM for $126 ???

http://www.pricewatch.com/1/33/5025-1.htm

You always have to pay more for a complete system that is tested and supported by a large company (Apple, Dell, HP, whatever). So it's useless to throw in the cost of individual parts.

So, because mac users have to pay MSRP (or greater) for their computers, x86 users have to pay the same? Nice try, but no, I like my custom system. All the components in my system have been meticulously tested by corporations before they leave the plant.

For the lazy and uninformed, I'll grant you that Macs are comparably priced. But for those of us who can build their own computer, PCs are no contest except in very specific situations.

edit AGAIN! I'm only talking in terms of hardware here, I automatically get to call anyone a jackass who thinks I didn't say the Mac OS makes the PC NOT worth it! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Mid-range? PCs
Ultra-high range? PCs
Between Mid and High? Possibly Macs, Certainly PCs once a new quad Opteron mobo comes out (A dual opteron might have the same power as a dual G5).

[gekko513]

For the lazy and uninformed, I'll grant you that Macs are comparably priced. But for those of us who can build their own computer, PCs are no contest except in very specific situations.

Thanks :D Add in people who like to be productive on their computers rather than tinker with it.

[thecombatwombat]

Apple screws with its timings to prevent you from using anything but specialized RAM, which is only mildly cheaper via 3rd party than the apple store. Truth be told, half the price of the mac is the RAM, and a 'mild' price reduction is probably going to make a big difference. However, it'd have to be 1/3 the cost in order to have the cost usurp my PC's


Uhm, maybe, not to be a total dick but you can back that up anywhere? My bet would just be that apple requires very low timings . . . you know . . . non crap bottom of the barrel pricewatch ram . . .


First off, I said EXCELLENT, not equivalent, I even said it in all caps.. Second, where are you getting your numbers from? I get mine from http://www.pricewatch.com ... a $200 PSU?? is it gold plated?

I said $200 for a $150 case and a decent PSU.

But actually, yes. Multi-processor boards don't use standard ATX PSUs (maybe that one does, so new to me) but a 4 cpu power supply will probably be well over $70.

Your box also comes with no keyboard and mouse . . . or support and warranty for that matter.

All of those parts have a warranty of some sort. Maybe not as good as apple's included 1 year, and definitely not as good as applecare.




First of all, like I said, Maxtors suck.

OK, that was just a typo -- I meant replace their maxtor's with your WDs -- either way you get my point.

I have a PC next to my powerbook. It runs Debian. I still totally agree that it was a much better deal price/performance wise, but I still say those numbers are crazy.

I'm serious about the bit with the ram -- if that's true and you can show me something beyond "does something weird with their timings" I want to know about it before I add some (quality) ram to my powerbook.

[LethalWolfe]

How many of us would buy Apple hardware if we could run Apple software on generic Intel parts from Crap-o-tron? Be honest... A lot of us would, no doubt about it.

If you did you'd be sorry. One of the things that gives Apple a leg up is their closed hardware. If Apple released a perfect port of OS X for x86 it wouldn't fair any better than XP, IMO. What's more difficult, dealing w/the few dozen G3, G4 and G5 hardware varients, or dealing w/the thousands of x86 hardware variants out there?


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

I never said that, we're talking about hardware, I already said the OS is the only reason I buy mac. Someone said Mac hardware was cheaper/comparable and better, I begged to differ.

Whoa. Since when is hardware of any use without an OS? If you've already admitted that the MacOS is what makes Mac hardware worth buying, then what kind of sense does it make to leave out the cost of the OS when pricing out a competing PC?

As for building your own PC, as I've recently discovered myself, this is a non-trivial exercise. For those who enjoy rolling their own, it might be worthwhile and enjoyable, and even marginally rewarding from a financial point of view. But it's certainly not for everyone. So the only fair cost comparison is between Apple hardware and hardware from an OEM. With an OS installed.

Home builders always want to brag about how much money they save, but almost invariably they leave something out when they add up the costs. This is why you're being seemingly nitpicked on issues like the RAM, keyboard, mouse and OS. These things add up.

[thecombatwombat]

Home builders always want to brag about how much money they save, but almost invariably they leave something out when they add up the costs. This is why you're being seemingly nitpicked on issues like the RAM, keyboard, mouse and OS. These things add up.

Indeed. As another example, this kid's board requires registered ECC RAM. I'd bet that's 9 sticks of incompatibility just purchased right there.

Not only that, said board has no AGP slot.

They make that graphics card for PCI-X? Hmmm, the less featured mac board has 8x agp . . . and firewire . . . and . . .

I haven't really read up on any tech specs on that board . . . but I believe it has per cpu ram . . . (it has 4x4 banks per cpu . . . not 20 gigs in 10 slots like you said . . .) but there will likely be less ram available to applications on that board.

I could go further. I was being kind of nice before, but your configuration wouldn't even work. That's a fantastic deal.

EDIT: I found that board with the ram configuration you said, just in case the diagram was all wrong and it has AGP and such too. (it doesn't)

http://tyan.com/products/html/thunderk8qs.html

[slughead]

There are many problems with my hypothetical PC, but there are even more problems with your responses to my last post.

I'm not going to deal with correcting the accuracy of 3 people's posts. So I concede that my hypothetical PC is not as good a deal as its mac counterpart.

I could put together another one, slightly slower in processor, but faster in just about everything else, but I have a feeling that one little error will cause a flame war.

I'd just like to make some closing points:

1. Building your own PC allows you to avoid buying certain things (like a brand new license for the OS that you already own).

2. Upgrading a PC is much easier, cheaper, and more cost effective than having to buy a new Package deal (like a mac) every time you want to upgrade your mobo or processor.

Therefore you aren't taking into account the whole picture by saying this setup is more expensive. In the short run, yes. But if I want to upgrade, I can replace the processors and buy a video card (that's reasonably priced and up-to-date). Not to mention the expansion bays in the case, so I can actually have more than two hard drives without Apple releasing a new computer.

3. If I had compared a feature-reduced DP2.5 to a PC, I could easily reduce the cost by half just buy switching to a dual opteron setup. $1600 for this mobo is way overpriced--but when I first chose it I figured it'd still be cheaper. Excuse my error. How fast is the DP2.5 in comparison to a dual opteron? I'm looking forward to a barefeats test. I'm confident that the difference between the two, even if not in the PC's favor, will not be worth the extra cost of the mac's hardware.

4. Someone was saying that since my setup doesn't include the cost of the OS (presumably he meant windows), it somehow points to the mac being a better deal. Well, as I said before, I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE WHOLE MAC PACKAGE WAS A BETTER DEAL, THE ARGUMENT WAS OVER THE HARDWARE. You want an OS that can power multiple x86 CPU's? Linux, and it's free. What the hell do you want from me? Pushing the fact that Apple forces you to buy the OS can only be a part of this discussion if you point out that you pay for the os with every CPU purchase whether you want to or not--making the x86 route a lot more freedom.

5. What do I want apple to do? Release an x86 version. Just do it. Include generic drivers, allow companies to write their own. Charge $600 for it, and give away the PPC version for free. They can get their money for R&D, an then some. I assure you, after a while there will be a long list of companies whose drivers are the same or better than Apple's. This whole argument that "oh well apple locks you in to make their OS more stable" is a bunch of crap and Open Source OS's are proof--more stability than OS X, and way more supported hardware.

6. Read my lips: Apple locks you into their hardware to make money, they lose money on their OS.

7. Apple's hardware is no better than some of the stuff available for PC, in fact, Apple is using crappy hard drives again (maxtor), which makes it WORSE than a lot of PC hardware. Bad hard drives are the absolute most terrible thing they could've done (data loss is the worst thing that can happen to your computer, because it can't be fixed with money alone), I'd pay extra for a seagate, even though seagates cost less than maxtors at those sizes at street prices.

Well I hope I've helped some of you detach your lips from apple's bunghole, and I thank thecombatwombat for keeping an open mind from the get-go. I would again remind you that I've been using macs for 18 years and I'm proud to do so. I've just taken an economics class is all, and I realize that it's OK for companies to want money, and we should all expect them to do so.

[IJ Reilly]

If you want to pick a fight around here you're going to have to work a lot harder. :)

Just as a point of order, you're not being flamed just because some of your assertions are being questioned. It looks like some of those questions turned out to be perfectly valid.

If you make numerous assumptions, you can prove nearly anything, though in the end what you've probably actually proven is so highly conditional that it's hardly interesting. Yes, you can reuse PC parts, yes, you can reuse your OS license (assuming it's not an OEM from another manufacturer), and so on. Then you simply leave out the time and effort it requires it do the actual work of assembly, and bingo, big savings.

I've now built my own PC, and though I hardly feel like an expert at this, I've confirmed my own suspicions: It isn't as cheap or as easy as it's often advertised. It's time consuming and full of pitfalls. If they're unlucky, a person could end up spending a pot of money and get nothing in return.

I think it's generally unfair, and not just to Apple, to compare home building to OEM machines. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare a factory-built box from Dell to a PC you build yourself. For one thing, you trade your time and a warranty for some cost savings. That's fine for some, but not for the vast majority of computer buyers. The fact that Apple fails to cater to the home builder does not bother me. Neither does Dell.

[rueyeet]

Who wouldn't like Apple's hardware to be a little less expensive? Sure, it's comparable for a similarly-equipped Wintel, but the difference is that you don't have cheaper, less-equipped alternatives on the Apple side. I totally agree that Apple keeps its hardware margins high to sustain profitability, and that this doesn't so much subsidize software development as the software is a loss-leader for the hardware. And if I could run OS X on Intel, I probably would try it.

That said, going x86 would kill Apple, because no one would buy their hardware when they can run OS X and the iApps on a crap-ass cheapo $599 (after rebates) Dell.

But I have to take issue with these couple of points:

1. Building your own PC allows you to avoid buying certain things (like a brand new license for the OS that you already own).

2. Upgrading a PC is much easier, cheaper, and more cost effective than having to buy a new Package deal (like a mac) every time you want to upgrade your mobo or processor.

1. Not for me. I generally only replace my computer when the old one is no longer useful, and by then there's a new version of the OS that I don't have a license for anyway. This just isn't a consideration.

2. Not for me. Back when I first wanted to build my own PC, I had all the time in the world, but not enough money. Now I have plenty of money, and no time at all. By the time I research all the bits and pieces to make sure they'll all work together, buy all the bits and pieces I've researched, and put them all together, the trade in time is just not worth it. Even if I could run OS X on x86, I wouldn't build my own PC.

Fortunately for me, my needs and priorities put me squarely in Apple's target market of consumers who just want to use their computers, not futz with it. Unfortunately for you, your needs and priorities are firmly outside of Apple's target market.

Fact is, because there are more people who just want to use their computer than build it, and many many more people who are just too clueless or trepidatious to build their own PC, I think Apple's going to side with me on this one.

[IJ Reilly]

If Apple issued a generic x86 version of OSX, it wouldn't be running on cheap Dell machines, because Microsoft has the big OEM PC market completely wired up. It would probably be mainly run on home brew machines, and very few of the home builders would pay more than $50 for a copy. (I know because I've asked and this is the most common answer.) It would probably turn into a very popular bootleg item.

[Crikey]

1. Building your own PC allows you to avoid buying certain things (like a brand new license for the OS that you already own).

2. Upgrading a PC is much easier, cheaper, and more cost effective than having to buy a new Package deal (like a mac) every time you want to upgrade your mobo or processor.

Therefore you aren't taking into account the whole picture by saying this setup is more expensive. ( . . . )

1. If you didn't code your OS, you don't already own it. You've just licensed the use of it, and if it came with hardware and was written by Microsoft, the license agreement specifies that you can ONLY use it with that hardware. You can't move it onto your new homebuilt hardware and comply with Microsoft's licensing agreement. The home-built PC value equation requires software piracy to work. Otherwise, you need to budget for a retail copy of Windows, or use Linux.

2. Cheaper, maybe. More cost effective, depends. Easier? No way. What could be easier than putting my credit card down and getting a brand new Mac with the latest goodies that Just Works (TM)?

Other posters here have done a good job of showing that the value proposition for PC home-builts doesn't take into account the whole picture, either. Did you notice that Comp-U-Plus will want to charge you $30 in shipping for that amazingly cheap $26 audio card you found? (Exaggeration, but only slight; I've bought from them before.) How much is your time worth? It boils down to: do you enjoy researching PC parts, buying them, assembling them, testing them, replacing the ones with compatibility problems, and either running Linux or paying crazy Windows retail-box prices or pirating copies of your OEM Windows? Or would you rather spend your time using a computer?

I've built a PC that ended up costing way more than the Mac I'm using now, and I got a lot less value out of using the PC. I'm not knocking home-building; as a hobby, it was fun for a while. But I agree with many Mac users that simply as a means of saving money it's not that effective.

It all depends on what you want to do with your time and money.


Crikey

[slughead]

If you want to pick a fight around here you're going to have to work a lot harder. :)

Heh, you got that right. I should've just chosen to build the notorious Dual 3.2 Xeon, or build a Dual Opteron. The price would be so low even a totally cheapo DP2.5 couldn't even compete. So what if it's like 1 second slower in PS after a 5000-step process? It's a grand less! But that wouldn't have worked because there's always the guy that says "well the 1 FLAUP you get is worth $1000!" So I chose the one that would indisputably win in a benchmark contest.

Then you simply leave out the time and effort it requires it do the actual work of assembly, and bingo, big savings.

It took me 2 hours to assemble my PC from all separate parts. I saved $2,000+.. I donno about you but my time isn't worth a grand an hour.. On the other hand, I also know a thing or two about PCs, and that was the 5th one I'd built.

You have to understand something about http://pricewatch.com .. the things you get on there are usually around half MSRP. Dell and Apple both sell around or above MSRP for each component. But they do come pre-assembled.. Maybe go to http://ibuypower.com ?? I saw their ads and they were pretty cheap.

I think combatwombat was right, generally PCs are cheaper, but my example was not a good one.

[gekko513]

It took me 2 hours to assemble my PC from all separate parts. I saved $2,000+.. I donno about you but my time isn't worth a grand an hour.. On the other hand, I also know a thing or two about PCs, and that was the 5th one I'd built.
It took me 4 hours to assemble my Dual Opteron from all separate parts. Then I tried to install RedHat Enterprise Linux for AMD64 from my CDs ... didn't support SATA. Then I tried 32 bit Knoppix, just to test the thing ... didn't support my Apple Display .... then I tried Fedora Core 2 ... worked fine ... for a while, then started crashing every once in a while ... realized I had installed 32 bit version of Fedora when there actually is an AMD64 vesion ... installed the 64 bit version ... worked fine, then started to crash ... discovered that CPUs were running quite hot ... got hold of couple of omfier case fans and round IDE cables ...

Three workdays in total to make the thing work ... probably not worth $2,000 though. Still, I get your point. I'm just trying to provide an example to make the point that when you buy parts you will more often have troubles and use precious time before you have a functional system. (Did I mention that on top of this the delivery of the parts took a total of 5 months because the incredibly slow and cheating reseller wasn't just slow but tried to deliver some alternative parts which had to be sent back to be replaced by what we had actually ordered :mad: )

[angelneo]

It took me 2 hours to assemble my PC from all separate parts. I saved $2,000+.. I donno about you but my time isn't worth a grand an hour.. On the other hand, I also know a thing or two about PCs, and that was the 5th one I'd built.

I think combatwombat was right, generally PCs are cheaper, but my example was not a good one.

I guess the point everyone is making is that you are the minority, slughead. Its good that you know your hardware and can build one yourself but many people do not know how to do it. Some do not even have a clue where to look for all the various parts. It is so much easier to pay dell, hp or apple to get a working system so that they do not have to go through the whole process and if anything goes wrong they would just call the customer service.

You are definitely right that home-built PC are much much more cheaper but many people just dont have the expertise or time to do up one.

[IJ Reilly]

I guess the point everyone is making is that you are the minority, slughead. Its good that you know your hardware and can build one yourself but many people do not know how to do it. Some do not even have a clue where to look for all the various parts. It is so much easier to pay dell, hp or apple to get a working system so that they do not have to go through the whole process and if anything goes wrong they would just call the customer service.

You are definitely right that home-built PC are much much more cheaper but many people just dont have the expertise or time to do up one.

Cheaper, maybe. But not "much cheaper." The reports of saving are often if not usually exaggerated by leaving out essential elements such as an OS or keyboard (as we've just seen). There's a little too much interest in bragging rights among the home brewers I think.

A repeat home-builder will certainly be able to complete the project in under the six hours it took me the first time, but that's almost entirely beside the point considering that I did not sum any of the hours spent researching, shopping or buying. All of that time on pricewatch adds up.

While I'm on that subject... I'm a fairly aggressive shopper and I found that the prices on the component parts do not vary by much and to get the lowest possible prices you have to deal with sources with dubious reputations. It pays to buy from the more reputable dealers, IMO, even though they usually charge a bit more. Also, playing the mix and match game with the dealers can cut you out of OEM-only prices on some of the components.

So once again, quoting the lowest price on every component from pricewatch simply isn't a real-world type of exercise. This is just another way the home-builders disinflate the cost of their projects to something lower than they're likely to be in the end.