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.