I disagree with the thought that Macs are horribly overpirced, for their exact hardware, they are fine, but I think your comparison system was not an accurate comparison, as the argument used by PC fans is not EQUAL, but EQUIVILENT, they want the same performance, for a lower price, not the same equipment. You could get a nearly equal processor for 750 less (core 2 quad, or amd phenom 9950BE)and still have comparable, (not equal) performance. The objective is not an exact match, but rather an equivalent speed for the least amount of money. Additionally, if you’re planning to build a single processor system, then you don't buy a 2 slot motherboard, (an advantage Mac doesn’t offer) (Just a quick error I noticed, If you have a 1394b controller, you don't need an A, as it will suffice for both.)
Additionally, one point that can be made is that you can also spent 319 on a power supply, when a sufficient one could be bought for under 200, and in some cases under 150. Often, with rebates from sites such as NewEgg, you can save up to 300 between combo deals and mail in rebates. The case is equivalent, but because of mass production, I'm sure that it is fairly priced, as Mac cases are produced on a much larger scale that almost any aftermarket PC case. The advantages of mass production are enormous, for example (and its unfortunate that I use a Microsoft product here) it is impossible to build a PC anywhere near equivalent to the XBOX 360, for under 400, and difficult under $1000, although possible, but Microsoft still manages to make money. I’m sure Dell doesn’t pay anywhere near retail value for their parts, but they couldn’t come anywhere near that performance to price ratio. (I do understand that the XBOX isn’t exactly a computer, but if Mac is building proprietary hardware, they should be capable of a noticeable performance boost)
The reason that PC’s tend to have a better price to performance ratio is that you can build a computer to almost any spec, or for almost any amount of money, such as you showed in your “Build Your Own Mini-PC for 80$” article. The other advantage is that, when you are building a PC, you almost always have the ability to find a better deal, such as a universal 60 dollars off of windows vista, when you buy a processor. I think it would be more accurate, if you attempted to build an equivalent performance (NOT equal) for the least money possible, and test both computers on Linux. I'm sure that you have enough fans willing to give their specs, the current cost of the parts, and a 3dmark score to attempt to argue their point, and all you would need to do is supply the software for the tests. ( 3Dmark is windows only, and that wouldn’t be a accurate test of the Mac’s speed)
On the other hand, the Mac operating system is beautiful, and cannot be flawed for that, and much of the appreciation for Macs comes from a mix of their beauty, and a hate for large establishment. (Also from misinformation, see Mohave experiment) I do enjoy the Mac OS, and use it at least 5 hours week. I don't claim to be a fan boy of either, but I feel that the object of this article was misguided. What the article was supposed to show was equivalent performance, NOT equal parts value. If you prefer the Mac OS, then I have no objection, and can completely agree, but the argument that an equivalent performance PC costs the same isn’t correct, perhaps a equally equipped computer may, (again, mass production, Apple pays less for their parts as well, which should be taken into consideration, but if we are to go that in-detail, then we ought to consider other more precise things)
One final point, that Macs are capable of running Windows, is misleading, as there is software to do the same for the Mac OS on PC’s (see Psystar)
P.S. I'm glad thought to see that someone could atempt somthing as far as a realistic veiw of the PC-Mac wars.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram