The Dell Price Point Challenge (game... sorta)
 

The recent Keynote on Monday made notice (2x) that Dell was more expensive than Apple. Now, I'm fully aware that the listed price when building a Dell PC isn't the best way to save money with Dell hardware. And I assume Dell will adjust their pricing if you say that an Apple (or another brand) has the same configuration for less.

Anyway, with every comparable configuration I've done at the Dell online store their hardware turned out to be more expensive. Can you find one where Dell is lower?

Rules:

• CPU: Same model and speed
• RAM: Size and quantity must be equal, and must be ECC (speed is not an issue: Dell uses 533MHz while Apple uses 667MHz)
• HDD: Equal amount of drives, same RPM, capacity and type (eg: SATA)
• Optical Drive and Video Card: Configure Dell to have the same speed Optical Drive and Video Card
• No additional periphials: (eg: Bluetooth, 802.11, Keyboard, Mouse, Monitor) (If perhipial comes automatically for free attempt to add to the equiv. item for comparison)

Stuff like the powersupply and motherboard I'm not going to worry about. Things like bundled software, integration, usability and acstetics would make any Windows PC lose immediatley so those won't be counted either. Just the major guts!

Any takers?

I believe Steve was counting the included software as well as the things you have to add to a Dell such as virus and spyware protection, and also the long term cost of fixing problems. If it's for hardware only, he's a liar.

Actually I spent a great deal of time trying to build comparable systems (since they use different kinds of hardware) and he wasn't lying. It's not quite the 800 dollars he suggested. But you do spend a bit less on the Apple 3ghz Dual setup, I think it ended up being about 300 or so...

Then of course you could throw in how much it would cost to build a comparable iLife suite, and how much it would be to build something like iCal/Mail/Address Book. And that would build the price up a bit more.

But, all in all, I think they did make a point. If you take similarly equiped systems Apple's don't really cost more. They are actually just a bit less than the competition.

I think for a while now Apple hardware has at least been on the same sort of price level as any other big name

sure dont compare it with a build your own box but if compared to a Dell and or Alien Ware (now dell anyway) HP etc chances are they are similar

Mac World's Dan Frakes wrote an article comparing a Mac Pro to an equivalent Dell tower.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/feat...php?lsrc=mwrss

take a few more things into consideration here.

What motherboards are available, and which chipsets do each use? Also, powersupplies make a difference. Especially running lots of different peripherals. However, I will keep the original task at hand here and not compare motherobards and powersupplies.

This matters, in performance. I have seen a crappy chipset totally defeat the purpose of a high end processor.

So, I took your challenge and built a mac pro and a dell to similiar configuration to compare price/quality or cost effectiveness.

I compared the Dell 690 Vs The Mac Pro

First off, the Dell 690 out of the box is 1700 and change where the mac pro is 2400. The dell onlyhas one processor at that price tier however.

Also, in the macworld review there is one major flaw of comparing video cards. Nvidia Quadro cards are render cards, designed for a work horse of a work station. Our maya animation labs at work run quadra cards which are more expensive. He compared an GeForce card, which is a non comparison in my book.

So here is the dell:

Here goes the mac pro
I copied and pasted these from their repsective websites, both apple and dell. As you can see I changed a few things. For one I upgraded the Dells warranty to a three year business class over the three year economy. Business class gets you next day parts, and onsite and phone support, like apple care. I added apple care to compensate for the business class dell. However, the standard warranty with the dell is 3 years, where with apple it is only one year. So I could argue the fact that I did not even need to upgrade to the business class warranty and saved nearly another $100.00. It is debateable so I just went ahead and tossed the buisness class warranty in there.

Both of these systems have 4500 FX Quadro cards. This is because the dell did not offer any other basic consumer card, and the only card both companies offered was the 4500. Now, with the dell I could opt out of the video card, get the basic low end one and go to a local computer store and pick up whatever nvidia card the mac pro has in stock.

both systems have dual xeon processors @ 3GHz

Both systems have 1gig of ram

both systems have the same video card

both systems have the three year warranty plan

both systems have 250gig SATA HD

The dell has a free 19" LCD monitorboth have standard issue keyboard/mouse

both have DVDRW drives, the dell comes bundled with a version of roxio for free (the lite version more than likely)

Even though the mac pro's SATA controllers are listed as 4 independent controllers they could very well be software RAID configured. This is an advantage I suppose if you wish to run a software RAID. In my professional opion software raids are horrible, and you should always just drop the extra $ and toss in a hardware raid controller. Niether system comes with a RAID controller though OS X has the ability to software RAID. With dell it would be a utility that was bundled with that said motherboard, and I am going to guess thats not quite a viable option, but possible.

There are several other factors to consider with the overall quality of the system. Things like configuration for repair (how easy is it to fix) and down time when something goes wrong. Don't state that apple's don't break either that is such a moot point. I fix apple computers all the time, they break, and I do warranty work on them personally. They may not break as much as other systems I support but they do in fact break. Almost all business class dell machines are modular, meaning they snap together and snap apart with minimal screws. Making it easier on someone to take apart. The mac pro (I Haven't taken one apart yet, but am basing this off the G5) is more than likely a pain which requires some special or esoteric tools to take a part. The G5 is a nightmare in design in this way, and I find it a flaw on an enterprise level. You should design systems that are easy to fix so little down time occurs when they fail. I can't stand how their powersupplies are tossed in the bottom. You get any kind of surge and PSU goes, it takes a few moments to replace in a PC, it takes like at least 30 minutes in a G5 and that is if you know what you are doing. That is all I will state on that.

Other things to consider, 64bit machine with 64bit OS. Currently not possible with a mac, until the release of Leopard. Not a huge deal, but if you are a mac user be prepared to upgrade all your software if necessary.

sorry have to split this in two posts, its too long....

Okay so somebody please come in and prove me wrong.

This was a hardware only comparison, I did not include software. but now I will go on to comparing software.

OS - well yeah they come with what you can get, windows vs mac, otherwise you can opt to put linux on it for free I suppose.

Applications

Out of the box an apple can:
-edit film
-rip and burn audio/video to several formats
-internet/email
-basic office functions (if you cheaply upgrade to iworks)
-manage photos
-author dvds
-basic productivity (office and/or school)
-multimedia ready (itunes/quicktime)
-widgets (not sure if this is a major advantage)

Out of the PC this PC can:
-rip and burn audio/video to several formats
-edit film (tho windows film editing software blows compared to imovie)
-internet/email
-basic office functions (though really you need to toss office on there OEM office goes for 150ish to 250ish dollars depending on how you want to go)
-manages photos (but not as good as iphoto i must admit)
-multimedia ready (media center, etc)

So really in all honesty, there is very little difference on what they can do out of the box. I will admit that the bundled user software for the mac platform is plain out better. However, many people tend to make lots of mistakes when comparing full features of bundled software versus third party or high end software. For example basic movie editing software equal to imovie you can get for around an extra $50.00 ~ 100.00, and the photo managing software you can get free with your digital camera and/or scanner or you can download some free software or you can buy a package similiar to iphoto (similiar in features and function, not UI) for around 20 to 30 dollars. Add spyware and anti virus software (both for around 80 dollars) on the PC side since they do tend to need it more. Though I will argue that a lot of that stuff is because the user is not aware, ignorant, or just doesn't care what they download. I personally have very little spyware protection on my computer at home and am very careful how I use my PC, and I currently have NO anti-virus. Been this way on my PC for years and I have never gotten a virus on my main PC. I have gotten viruses on my other PC but I don't care with that system, I just do whatever with it and wipe it if need be.

So, now add another $200.00 to $300.00 in software (including sales tax, rough estimate) and you are about equivilant to a mac

for software I chose these
NAV 39 OEM 49 retail
Spysweepter 19 OEM 29 retail
basic video editing 50 to 150 (i just looked at prices, not sure which low end one would be the most comparable to imovie)

I still have the dell as being cheaper, is that right? I double checked it twice now and it still got the same results

There are obvious differences between a mac and a PC from Dell. For one the Apple looks different so it does have "the cool look" value I suppose if you are in to that. Personally, i was hoping for a new design from apple, that is just me I suppose. Other things are quality of ram. Both systems can take ECC memory however I do not know which brands are in which system. In the past apple has used samsung memory. Also, what exact chipsets, north bridge, south bridge, SATA and IDE controllers are being used? Who wrote the drivers for them, and how do they perform in given use scenerios. Benchmarking can really show what a system can do, and it can really mean nothing at all. So, this is really up to the end user and how they preceive it. Also, seriously apple, get rid of those cycloptic mice. I am sorry but I have to have a 2 button mouse (at least) with a scroll wheel.

The dell computer does not list what type of NIC is in it either. The apple will have a gigabit card in it, and I can only assume that the dell does also. Almost any motherboard you buy these days has an onboard gigabit card on it, and almost every business class machine will have a gigabit nic on it as well. The dell site did not list it

I opted out of wireless, since wireless is kind of useless on a desktop IMO, unless its for an end user or a last ditch resort (can't run cable to it) because wireless is not stable nor fast enough to really compete with having a wired connection. However, I am willing to bet that third party PC wifi hardware is probably cheaper than apple hardware. Maybe not much cheaper but cheaper.

If I made any mistakes please feel free to correct them, I am not saying I would rather have a Dell over a Mac Pro desktop, I am just saying that a similiar dell is cheaper.

For one, you used the much cheaper 5050 chip. Apple uses 1.33GHz frontside bus w/ 4MB L2 cache, while the Dell you posted uses 667GHz frontside bus w/ 2MB L2 cache. The price jumps around $1,860 if you go with the exact CPU, the 5160 chip.

Ah yes didn't catch that off the bat, that is because the apple site did not list the specs for the processors, it just listed the Ghz instead. Okay Let me see if I can find a configuration with those processors and compare price

With the 5160 instead of the 5050 chip it jumps the price to $5572

I could drop the 100 bucks off the three year business warranty and just get the three standard making it $5472

let me see how the motherboards compare

I think you also need to select the 1 KW power supply on the Dell

I've recently sold my PB and am using a Compaq notebook due to a need to use a Windows-only program for work. I'm hoping this will push my cheap ass into buying a MacBook (Pro) with Parallels. Anyway, I've come into a lot of frustration with WinXP not having some basic apps that I've been ttaking for granted in OS X. Most notably is a DVD player and an ISO reader.

The standard mighty mouse has multiple buttons on it despite it's cycloptic appearance.

I believe I read that you can add an second 10/100/1000 NIC for an additonal cost, which would bring it closer to the Mac Pros default of 2 10/100/1000 NICs

To get as close to the Mac Pro as posssible you are correct; but to be fair, I did state in my inital post that the powersupply was not an issue. something I clearly overlooked.

Nope, not for that configuration. Maybe if I were running a RAID I would want a bigger PSU, but for this configuration (video, dual proc, 1 HD 1 Optical) a 750 is sufficient, there is no option on a mac but I am looking it up right now.

well, on the service end of things they do not list what PS was in the units. Does it list it on the spec page?

To further compare the motherboards the Dell's motherboard is based off the intel 5000x chipset on it as well as onboard hardware raid supporting raid 0 and raid 1 (and 0+1).

The motherboard also supports up to 64GB of RAM via daughter board (i have no idea why you need that much ram on a work station or a server is beyond me)

The Dell supports ATI FireGL technology, which is a plus I suppose if you use it. I do not see support for the mac platform (as of yet) for this.

http://www.ati.com/products/fireglt2-128/

http://www.mcadonline.com/index.php?...=288&Itemid=73

So, bottom line the mac pro is in fact cheaper. You can weigh out the benefits of this motherboard. One advantage the dell does have is you can configure it with cheaper processors if you wanted to hold out until a price break happens, sell your processors on ebay and then buy newer ones....however that can be seen as a hassle also.

From the looks of it though the 690 does have a better motherboard in it (with more features) which may justify the price difference in apple. However, I must admit I was a non believer of an apple system being cheaper.

Now, it may be unfair, but I am tempted to build one from scratch and compare the price to apple mac pro desktop. I am curious how that would compare.

solipsism-

check out VLC media player. It works on all paltforms (win32/64/linux/OS X) and uses little resources, plays about everything, highly configurable, can have seperate sub title files, etc etc.

I don't use anyone's bundled dvd player anymore

and its free!

OH and PS winrar will read .iso files and there are a plethora of .iso editors out on the windows platform.

You just have to check out some of the third party stuff.

Though I don't have the specs for Mac Pro powersuppply it is quite a bit better than the low-end Dell you mentioned. I deduced this because of the video card and the RAM limitations (4GB max) using the less powerful powersupply.


PS: The first thing I tried was VLC Player, but it wouldn't work. I ended up geting PowerDVD for that and Nero the ISOs. I found that I prefer Nero's Showtime is the best software i've found for watching and video (DVDs, AVIs, MPEGS) as VLC Player has been crashing my system, even after reinstalling XP from scratch. I really miss OS X when I'm traveling.

PPS: Thanks for pricing out the machine.

Wow, this has been rather informative so far. You ought to compare the iMac's and the Mac Mini as well. That way we have comparrisons for all the desktops. It's useful information for those of us who are trying to convert friends :).

yeah its not listed, I know the highest end G5s have like a 650 or 750W PS in them, so its possible that the mac pro has the 1jiggawatt (had to toss that in there, sorry)

Hmm, thats strange VLC has always rocked for me I just ripped the whole series of firefly box dvd to my PC since I was tired of opening up the box set and changing out discs in my dvd player. VLC plays the divx rips with out a hitch, and it plays just about every other format I toss at it. Weird you have problems, its maybe a bug due to your hardware configuration? No idea:confused:

I also can't find the specs on the mac pro's chipset, northbridge, southbridge, and SATA controllers. Even though to the naked eye none of those specs would probably make a difference but they could justify the price difference between the dell.

Also, if you read the article I linked it states that a daughterboard is needed to obtain the higher quantity of ram. Perhaps dell or Intel feels these features make it cost more.

Still, I would really hope for apple to adopt a technology like SLI or FireGL into their platform. I mean windows is kicking apple's butt in that department.

Now, if I could only just get my hands on a mac pro for a few days and play with it.

On a side note, you can also configure the Dell with Opterons and a different mobo/chipset. I have not done this yet, but would be curious to how that pans out in comparison of price versus performance.

I can tell you right now the only way that the dell would out perform the mac pro would be in high end use, with the dell having a raid and actually utilizing it.

However, it has been stated that apple actually found a fix for intel's memory controller issue (which is why the opterons have been kicking the living snot out of the xeons) however no one goes into great detail so it could all be hype.

Now, if only apple would make a mid range desktop, and had more third party support so I could cut corners and build my semi-high end desktop for a cheaper price.

Hmm...maybe not a great idea to compare the two. I'm trying to come up with a similar system to the 17" iMac. I tried the Dell E510 and I'm coming up with about 950.

Of course, I'm not much of a techie. I have to wonder if those processors are even comparable. Well, here's the page I was looking at anyway...

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...1F2&s=dhs&fb=1

I also am not sure about the sound cards...anyone who can help? I'm kind of hoping I'm not paying 300 for the 'slim' factor and OSX.

Tlarkin - Using the tech specs and Ohms Law the Mac Pro powersupply has the following Watts:

A 100 to 120 Volt input has a max of 12 Amps. This results in 1200 to 1440 Watts.
A 200 to 240 Volt input has a max of 6 Amps. This results in 1200 to 1440 Watts.

Zalister - Doing an iMac comparison would be tough as most PCs have the added benefit of being highly upgradable. The issue with the Mac Mini is that it's mainly laptop parts, sans the keyboard, mouse, and monitor. However, there is at least one company that did make a Mac Mini look-alike and, as I recall, it was quite a bit more expensive than the Mac Mini. I'll try to locate it.

True. Still. I just noticed that the E510 was a single core, how much would it bounce the price. Perhaps the iMac is only 50 dollars more? I just think it would be fun to know what the price comparissons are anyway. I think we might be pleasantly surprised if anyone can draw a direct comparision.

you are also paying for engineering and intuitive design. The iMac also takes up less space it being an all-in-one machine. The draw backs of the new intel based imac is its design inside not outside.

Apple nailed it right the first time, and they changed its design. The G5 iMac was hands down the best designed imac apple ever released. Three screws and the back panel pops off giving you access to all the hardware. The intel based imac you have to take the front off, then the screen with some heat shield and then you can to the hardware. The design is poor and no matter how careful you are the top casing never quite fits right back on once you take it off. Apple made a dumb move on that part.

Also take in to consideration anyone comparing an iMac to a desktop they must buy a monitor with it, since the iMac has one built in. It also has features like the isight and other things, that don't matter to me but may to some users. It really depends on your needs as a user. I can build a PC that will surf the internet, run windows, do email, and basic office work and build it for under 400 dollars. To really compare an iMac to a midrange PC you must compare the function of what the user would use it for.

Someone who spends 600 dollars on mac mini to surf the net and do emails is beyond me when they could have bought a PC and loaded linux on it for half the price and gotten the same functionality. However, this also brings into play what the user needs it for. They make linux shells that look just like OS X as well, so the UI is very similiar.

The specs listed in the dell you are comparing to I can only assume the new 20" iMac are debateable on both sides. For one the PC is cheaper, but it is also bundled with WinXP Media Center, which does not allow you to connect to domains (now I could be wrong on this, but when media center first came out it was based off of xp pro, and now the new versions are based off of xp home, however I could have that backwards so don't quote me on it). Again to an end user this is not important, and to an enterprise solution you probably have a site license of xp pro anyways for your orginization. The audio chip is better on the dell. However take into consideration the design of the iMac. The iMac is also very less upgradeable, and it takes DDR SO-DIMMS (another mistake by apple in the redesign) which are more expensive that regular DDR DIMMs. So the ram is out right more expensive, the dell you can completely upgrade from motherboard, processor, video card, ram, HD, optical drives, PCI cards, etc. The iMac you can not upgrade as much, and the optical drive is a laptop drive which makes it a lot more expensive to upgrade. However, again if the function of the imac fits your needs and you aren't going to upgrade it, you'd rather buy a new imac in a few years then maybe that justifies the price difference.

Performance wise, I would say those probably both perform about equally. Anyone know the response time (in ms) on apple LCDs on the iMac. I am going to guess its a 8ms response time...

My only problem when comparing a high end manufactured computer to an Apple is I can always build something practically as good (some cases better) for equal or less money.


So really do the features of the apple machine out weigh the price difference? Also, your dell can't run OS X, but your intel based mac can run windows xp. You just got to take everything into consideration. In the end they both get the job done IMHO.

I think you can deduce something from the fact that the Dell page says that you need the 1 KW power supply if you want to support multiple large monitors - which the Apple machine evidently does in the default config.

And note the Apple tech note on the Mac Pro machines:
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...608/index.html
It supplies some details that are missing from the Apple marketing pages.

The best Mac Mini comparison is AOpen's MiniPC.


"No, no, said AOpen, dismissing comments that the Mini PC was a Mac Mini rip-off, of course we're not competing with Apple - it's competing with us."

http://regmedia.co.uk/2005/06/02/mini_2.jpg

The Register article from the quote above where they state that they are NOT competing with the Mac Mini. They may not be competing, but they are defintiely copying.


....

lol that is hiliarious down to the emulated ipod-esque flash background of people dancing.

Lan PCs have been around even before the mini, and were geared towards gamers who like to haul their PC around to LAN parties. They were not as small as the Mini but offered features like full agp slots, liquid cooling, PCI slots, and DIMM slots making them more configurable. They are definitely larger than the mini though.

I really want an intel based mini personally, but don't like the crappy graphics chip they use.

I agree, but PSU units are funny. Is it a True 1kw PS or is it peak 1kw PS? Compare a 500w PSU to a 350w True powersupply and get almost the same performance in some cases. True powersupplies always run at their wattage where as non-true powersupplies run at that wattage when they peak, so adding a larger load means less watts.

I agree though with the configurations of the mac pro using dual display, 4 drives, plus two optical means it definitely has something in it more powerful than a 750w PSU.


I will admit again, I am surprised with apple's competitve pricing, the x86 hardware definitely gave them the ability to price match their competitors on a better scale than the PPC did.

Zalister - I couldn't find a pre-configured MiniPC model, but with a bare bones starting price at around £300 (which doesn' include a HDD, OS, RAM, Core Duo CPU and wireless card) I think that the Mac Mini would easuly beat it if configured.
Not to mention other little features like a remote control, bluetooth, 667MHz RAM x2 instead of 533MHz x1, IDE controler for HDD, etc.
However, I will give the MiniPC props for having DVI, Gigabit Ethernet, and Firewire onboard.

Many people suspect that Apple made a really good deal with Intel that enables them to save money on components (e.g. the Xeon processors).

I attempted to do a comparison between a Dell XPS 410 desktop and a iMac.

On both I used:

• 20" widescreen monitor
• Core Duo CPU
• 2GB RAM (2x 1GB)
• 500GB HDD
• DL-DVD burner
• ATI Raedon w/256MB RAM
• Remote control
• 1 year warranty

The 20" iMac came out to $2,274 while the XPS 410 came out to $2,179.

The differences:

• XPS 410 is using a Core 2 Duo while iMac uses only Core Duo.
• XPS 410 had a 2.13GHz CPU while the iMac used 2.0GHz.(Note I could have used a 1.83GHz in the Dell for less $50)
• XPS 410 used ATI x1300 while the iMac used ATI x1600 card.
• XPS 410 didn't list or give me an option to purchase a Wi-Fi card or Bluetooth.

This is a little more on par, pricewise. I wonder if Apple is delibertly shlashing it's profit margin on the new Mac Pros because it is so comparable to other available Intel-based towers.

So, the 20" iMac is actually fairly competitive. To me the space saved is worth the 100 dollars.

Edit: Don't forget the price of the built in iSight. What would it cost for a similar camera to be thrown in with the Dell?

One thing I want to point out is the perspective I come from. I can build computers, if I feel like it, but I don't like taking the time. Paying extra money for a prebuilt is fine to me. Coincidentally, upgradeability doesn't really matter that much to me, and frankly I think it matters little to most people. I know lots of people who are sold on the "upgradability" feature, and then they buy a totally new system in three or four years.

Re: Bottom line - MacPro cheapest
 

I am impressed by your thoroughness. Fascinating comparison! :cool:

Yes, indeed. I switched to VLC as my media player of choice because I got fed up with the DVD zone restrictions that Apple forces on us. Can’t stomach that, even if they’re just passing them on.

Thanks again,
ArcticStones

Despite most of the Mac line having a camera, it's not really a deal breaker and iused sparingly, if at all, in most cases. The Windows users (read: gamers) I know see the integrated camra as a gimmick and from their POV I guess they are right.

Yup, it really comes down to what the user wants. If someone can afford a mercedes benz and wants features that a benz can give is not going to buy a honda or a chevy with similiar features. They are going to buy a benz. In some cases its stupid consumerism IMHO (and in some cases its a status symbol), and in other cases there are valid reasons. However, there are always those consumers (users) you can just never please.

I think the iMac does make a good desktop in a small space. I do sub contract for a company on the side as their macintosh specialist (they have zero mac people) and so I do all of their mac clients (both commercial and consumer) and pick up the slack on the PC side when they get flooded with work orders or its something one of their engineers doesn't want to do, or they are on vacation. Whenever I talk with a client when consulting them on what to buy I always ask about space and location. If its crammed I immediately say get an imac, and if they want a more powerful desktop I tell them to get a laptop, and if they are set on getting a G5 (or mac pro nowadays) I tell them to get a bigger office or relocate it. Air flow is important to the larger machines that generate more heat. The iMac is heat piped from the bottom up, meaning fans (apple calls them blowers :confused: ) suck air from the bottom and pipe it out the top. Anyone who knows basic thermal dynamics knows that heat does in fact rise. So, it is designed to operate that way in a small office area, and still get decent air flow.

However, in my case, I can very easily build a computer, and have the ability to price hunt online (pricewatch, newegg, woot, and other sources) and can build a system to my needs at my own pace.

Right now I am building a MAME cabinet and its a slow project. I have the PC already built - MSI mb, P4 3.0, 1gig DDR, 160gig SATA HD, tower and powersupply, ATI radeon 9460 15khz video card (this is important, video arcade monitors run @ 15khz, where as CRTs run at approx 31khz - and it does matter if you want to use light guns, and how the roms from the arcade emulator run). Now I built all of that for just under 300 dollars getting package deal, rebates, and online specials. The video card I had to order specially since only one company I know makes them, and they are in the UK. I also bought an IPAC keystroke input controller for the arcade control panel. I need to get a arcade monitor and a cabinet and I am going to start making the mock (prototype machine). This project I started nearly 6 months ago and have only just gotten the hardware. This is because of situations of me moving, not having extra money at the moment, etc. However, I am planning at least getting the prototype up by christmas time this year. There is no way I could have done this with a macintosh computer. They are too limited in that sense.

Now, granted, not every user is going to want to build a MAME box with their mac, in fact looking it up online very few people have even really tried it.

When you look at a computer system you have to take everything into account. The hardware, the software, the OS, the support, the warranty, the quality, the engineering, pros, cons, third party support, and what you want to accomplish with it. For these reasons I will never sway either PC elitist or Mac elitist, and will probably just maintain my ground as being somewhere in the middle. Now, that apple pricing is way more comparable, price may not be an issue whenever I consult someone. Most of my side work though is more tech type stuff like networking, repair, upgrading, installs, deployment, etc. Only on occasion does someone want to pay me for consulting them. Usually they know someone who will do it for them (whether they are qualified or not is another story all together), but occasionally I do get a request to do so.

The one major difference is they pay me for my time, so I am not trying to sell them anything. I am not a sales person. I try to evaluate the means to an end.

My current beef with apple is not giving the end user what they want, its giving us people who work in technology better enterprise solutions. With this price break maybe they'll get a bigger market share and people will maybe start looking into enterprise solutions with apple platform and maybe apple will get off their butts and start making some changes.

What more could you want from life than the ability to see the person you are about to frag! Wait a sec...

Gimmick or now, iSights cost $130. And we're doing a price comparison not a usability comparison. Personally I think Apple has been a trend setter for years now and we can fully expect other companies to start adding camera's soon. Then we'll all be doing video chat, and Apple will have the last laugh.

If we started pricing out all the things that Macs a better overall system then I would certainly includ the iSight camera and a million other things that Windows hasn't yet figured out to steal.

I do recall Sony Vaios having built in video cameras and other multimedia stuff several years ago. I think that as befor it's time, but yo're right there are seveal new notebook apperas on Engadget that have integrated cameras.



PS: I've been roaming around HP's website looking to make a comparable Mac Pro machine but i can't seem to do it. The link above is for the same Xeon CPU, but it's for only one as far as can tell. This boggles my mind as it's an extremely expensive machine AND THAT IS BEFORE ADDING A VIDEO CARD. Plus, there grpahci cards are even more expensive than what Apple lists. Seriously, every time I do a price check, I:

1. Find that Apple products are well priced
2. Have a more appreciation for their entire site design.

Not only that, Sony also did a memorable TV commercial for the Vaio, focusing on just this feature. :cool: Beautiful!

Even though I can't find a link to back that up right now, I think Silicon Graphics were the first to bundle a camera with a computer, even if that was a workstation more than a regular desktop computer, a distinction that still mattered back in the days...

Following trends....
Any chance that Apple will allow there portables to play DVDs without starting the OS first? This is getting fairly common with higher end notebooks and it seems to reduce power sonsumption quite a bit.
Perhaps it's the novelty and/or minimalist nature of the device, but I this feature. After Blu Ray beomes common (yes, HD-DVD will not survive) lowering power consumption will be even more necessary.