Just don't give a rat's *ss

[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 )

 

[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.