[iBorg]

OS Views posted an article yesterday comparing the entry level G5 iMac to a DIY Dell build, showing a $350 cheaper computer by Apple!

Here are the specs for Apple's baseline iMac:

OS: OS X Panther
Processor: 1.6GHz PowerPC G5, 533MHz FSB
Memory: 256MB PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM
Storage: 80GB: Serial ATA; 7200 rpm
Optical drive: (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Flat Screen: 17-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix LCD, 1440 x 900 pixels
Networking:Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet
Modem 56K V.92
Audio: digital audio output, line in etc
Software: iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand, AppleWorks, Quicken 2004, World Book 2004 Edition, Nanosaur 2, Marble Blast Gold
Speakers: Built-in 2 stereo speakers
Keyboard: Apple Keyboard
Mouse: Apple Mouse
Case: iMac case

Total: $1,299

Here are the specs for a DIY PC:

OS: Windows XP Pro - $229
Abit KV8 Pro motherboard (GigE and digital audio out on-board) - $114
Processor: Athlon 64 2800+ - $167
Memory: 256MB PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM - $40
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM - $71
Storage: 80GB: Serial ATA; 7200 rpm - $70
Optical drive: (DVD-ROM/CD-RW) - $70
Flat Screen: 17-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix LCD, 1280 x 1024 pixels- $400
Networking: 10/100BASE-T Ethernet - $15
4-port Firewire card - $23
Modem: 56K V.92 - $20
Software:
Adobe Photoshop album (Compares with iPhoto) - $50
Windows Movie Maker (Compares to iMovie) - $0
Ulead DVD MovieFactory (Compares with iDVD) - $40
Fruity Loops (Compares with Garage Band) - $80
Microsoft Works (Compares with Apple Works - $50
Quicken 2004 - $60
World Book 2004 Edition - $15
Nanosaur 2 - $15
Marble Blast Gold - $15
Speakers: 2 speakers - $15
Keyboard: keyboard - $20
Mouse: mouse - $20
Case: case - $40

Total: $1,639

One caveat in comparing "Apples to apples":

Of course, its when you compare the two machines with the same specs, the price evens out. But because you can't custom build a Mac like you can a PC, the PC must be equipped to match the Mac's default specs. You can't do it the other way around.

Now, if Apple could just give me my damn BTO GPU card, I'd be all over that 20" iMac .....



iBorg

[lpetschauer]

if you're going to add software to the PC (to make it as functional as the Mac), why not add Virtual PC (w/XP Pro) to the price of the Mac, since the PC has the ability to run quite a few programs that the Mac can't.

In other words: Comparisons always fall short and can be subtly tweaked to prove points.

Edit: Also, the XP Pro price is off by $90.

[Luca Rescigno]

There's $325 in software on that PC, the Mac equivalents of which are usually not used by a typical Mac user.

XP Pro should be in OEM form instead of the retail box. After all, you don't get a retail Panther box with the iMac. The OEM disc is about $140.

An LCD with 1280x1024 is not a widescreen, but it's still a good comparison.

No one should pay $70 for a combo drive. That's what a dual format, dual layer, 16x DVD burner costs these days. Combo drives are more like $40, and it'll be a 52x, not a 24x laptop drive like in the iMac.

There's no reason to include a $15 networking card ($15? My school bookstore charges less than that!) since there is on-board gigabit ethernet (a feature the iMac lacks).

Going to NewEgg I was able to save $15 on the motherboard and $26 on the CPU. I didn't check everything though.

You do also have to remember that the Athlon 64 2800+ runs at 1.8 GHz, not the 1.6 GHz that the $1299 iMac runs at. It might be more fair to compare the PC to the $1499 iMac. But I still agree that the new iMacs are a good value... but like many here, I also think the graphics are kinda lame.

[pliny]

I sure wouldn't spend $1000+ on a Windows PC, I don't think they are worth it.

[klinux]

The software comparison is junk.

For PC I would use Picasa which is free and is the closest thing that comes to iPhoto. And why not OpenOffice which is free?

Comparing Apples to non-Apples machines is really a non sequitur. Since one should arrive at the conclusion that PCs are cheaper but what price one puts at the Mac+OS X experience?

(Ignoring the zealots who say the PC cost the same or lower, of course.)

[Krusty]

Yeah, drop $340 for the software you aren't really required to buy on the PC ... then the prices are nearly identical. Drop another $90 for the cheaper XP Pro OEM price (actually, XP pro is cheap now .. it is, after all, a 3 year old OS) and you come out about $80 in favor for the PC. Gimme an equivalent Mac for $80 more than a PC ANY DAY.

If you really wanted to push the software angle why not include the FREE Developer Tools. They certainly AREN'T comparable to Visual Studio, but they are pretty comparable to, say, one item in VS (say, just VB or just Visual C++). Still, saves you several hundred dollars if you use them.

I think its safe to say (and had indeed been said repeatedly in these forums), if you actually use some or all of the freebies that come with Macs, then they are strikingly good bargains.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by klinux:
The software comparison is junk.

For PC I would use Picasa which is free and is the closest thing that comes to iPhoto. And why not OpenOffice which is free?

I agree, Picasa is a great free program and I would choose OpenOffice over AppleWorks any day just for the fact that it does get regular updates.


Here is what I came up with just by doing a quick search on TigerDirect. I even entertained the whole software thing. I adjusted that part a little but I don't feel like looking deeper to find programs to compare. The video card is 128MB instead of 64MB. The DIY has a warranty on the individual components but the service is done by the buyer and who knows what kind of support you would get. Take away most of the software portion of the comparison and the total is even less for the PC.

The total I came up with is $1035.90 but doesn't include shipping. Of course there are other factors to consider.

Abit KV8 Pro motherboard (GigE and digital audio out on-board) - $112
Processor: Athlon 64 2800+ - $149.97
Memory: 256MB PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM - $40
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 with 128MB DDR SDRAM - $39.99
Storage: 80GB: Serial ATA; 7200 rpm - $79.99
Optical drive: (DVD-ROM/CD-RW) - $45.99
Flat Screen: 17-inch (viewable) non-widescreen TFT active-matrix LCD, 1280 x 1024 pixels- $219.00
Networking: 10/100BASE-T Ethernet - $4.99
4-port Firewire card - $15.99
Modem: 56K V.92 - $8.99
Soyo case with 350W PS, 2 speakers , keyboard, mouse - $39.99

Software:
Windows XP Pro OEM - $80 (not on TigerDirect but I have found it for this price)
Picasa � (Compares to iPhoto) - Free
Windows Movie Maker (Compares to iMovie) - Free
Ulead DVD MovieFactory (Compares with iDVD) - $40
Fruity Loops (Compares with Garage Band) - $80
OpenOffice (Compares with Apple Works) - Free
Microsoft Money 2004 Deluxe - $34
Microsoft Encarta 2004 Deluxe Edition - $15
Nanosaur 2 - $15
Marble Blast Gold - $15

I still wouldn't take my PC over my Mac. My money is better spent on a Mac.

[Commodus]

I'll agree that the gap in cost has narrowed a fair amount between Macs and PCs in some categories - Apple's only real problem now is that they make you get a certain minimum amount of hardware. Don't want a 17" widescreen LCD? Too bad - you're getting one.

Mind you, for some people whatever price disadvantage Apple has may be small enough to negate other costs on the x86 side. There are a number of people who are frequently clueless about security - a serious deficiency if you're using Windows - and so that $80 might disappear after having to take the system in for service. A USA Today columnist's Sony literally had its hard drive damaged beyond repair thanks to a virus!

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by lpetschauer:
if you're going to add software to the PC (to make it as functional as the Mac), why not add Virtual PC (w/XP Pro) to the price of the Mac, since the PC has the ability to run quite a few programs that the Mac can't.

In other words: Comparisons always fall short and can be subtly tweaked to prove points.

Edit: Also, the XP Pro price is off by $90.

ok we'll subtact the software
129 osx
49 ilife suite
60 quicken
15 world book 2004
15 nanosuar 2
15 marble blast gold

total subtracted from price 283
total price=1016
win xp 229(according to site it has been pointed out that this is wrong but since it was added at that price point we can subtract it at that price point)
50 photoshop album
0 movie maker
40 ulead dvd moviefactory
80 fruity loops
50 microsort works
60 quicken 2004
15 worldbook 2004 edition
15 nanosaur 2
15 marble blast gold
total subtracted from price 554
total price=1085

therefore mac's are of equal value to pc's.

[PEHowland]

Just for balance, and to fan some flames , this is what Tech Report had to say about the editorial:

"osViews has posted an editorial insisting that Apple's new iMac is less expensive than a DIY PC. The author compares the cost of a 1.6GHz G5-powered iMac, which runs $1,299, with that of a DIY system built around a Pentium 4 3.2GHz. He also adds the cost of a bunch of software to his DIY build, which comes out to $1,596 when all's said and done.

While it's difficult to compare the value of Macs and PCs, especially when you consider software cost, the author's DIY system hardware spec left me scratching my head. He seems to live in a bizarre parallel universe where AMD doesn't exist.

To see if I could do better, I hit up the web site of one of my local shops and started checking prices. I decided to use an Athlon 64 2800+ for my system, since with 64-bitness and a 1.8GHz clock speed, it's a far more appropriate competitor for the iMac's 1.6GHz G5 than a Pentium 4 3.2GHz. Otherwise, I tried to match osViews part for part. Here's what I came up with (all prices in USD):

Abit KV8 Pro motherboard (GigE and digital audio out on-board) - $114
Athlon 64 2800+ - $167
Seagate Serial ATA 80GB hard drive - $76
Liteon CDRW-DVD combo - $51
GeForce FX 5200 128MB - $65
256MB PC3200 memory - $56
56K V.92 Modem - $27
Case/PSU - $37
Speakers - $9
Keyboard - $9
Logitech optical wheel mouse - $13
Benq 17" analog/digital LCD - $361 (after rebate)
4-port Firewire card - $23

Taking software out of the equation, osViews' DIY system hardware costs $1186. My spec, with more graphics memory, Gigabit Ethernet, more USB and Firewire ports, and a much more appropriate processor, is nearly $200 cheaper at $1008. And I didn't even try that hard. You could probably put together an Intel-based DIY system for a similar price, too.

While it's unfortunate that the osViews editorial is so off-base, I'm more disturbed by the fact that the Mac community seems to be largely oblivious to the fact that AMD even exists. It's sad, really."

For me the value in the Mac is the Operating System and the overall design. These are worth a significant difference in price and a reduction in performance - for me. But many PC owners think differently.

[iBorg]

LOL!

I believe that the point of this article (and the reason for my posting it) was to help dispel the myth of having to pay outrageous prices for Mac vs. PC selections. We could hire CPA's (and K-Mart "Blue Light Special" shoppers) to nickel-and-dime this analysis, but that's really not the point!

Also, if we're going to figure in "sales prices," we can also subtract $100 from Apple's list prices, if you order the iMac from amazon.com.

Anyway, I thought the comparisons were interesting, if not precise, and help to justify the iMac's price points!



iBorg

[Gee4orce]

Are either of those PC CPUs 64-bit ?

Does the PC cost include the (essential) anti-virus and anti-spyware software ?

Is the PC monitor anywhere near the quality of the iMacs ?

I'd like to see a Total Cost of Ownership analysis in 3 years time.

Mac = purchase price - 2nd hand price (about 1/2 price new) + 1 or 2 OS updates from Apple (optional).

PC = purchase price - 2nd hand price (virtually nill) + 1 OS update from Microsoft (highly recommended) + cost to repair/rebuild after virus attack (x N time per year) + cost of lost productivity due to viruses + cost of time spent getting peripherals and networking configured + cost of loss of leisure time due to above factors + cost of damaged relationship with partner

I have no doubt the Mac is cheaper in the long run. But just like leasing an expensive car, even if the Mac costs more, you get a hugely better experience for a relatively small increase in cost.

[iBorg]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Are either of those PC CPUs 64-bit?

Athlon 64's are 64 bit.



iBorg

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Are either of those PC CPUs 64-bit ?

Yes, the Athlon-64 is 64-bit. The Athlon-64 brought 64-bit computing to the masses a few months before Apple announced (then had to withdraw) their claims to be the first 64-bit desktop.

Does the PC cost include the (essential) anti-virus and anti-spyware software ?

No, but AVG offers a very good free anti-virus checker and SpyBot is a superb free anti-spyware application. Most motherboard manufacturers also tend to bundle a free Norton Antivirus checker with their systems too. So, there is no need to factor in that cost.

Is the PC monitor anywhere near the quality of the iMacs ?

Probably very similar, the iMac monitor is very nice, but not substantially different from anything else on the market.

I'd like to see a Total Cost of Ownership analysis in 3 years time.

Fairly irrelevant for home users. TCO is more relevant to companies with IT departments and support staff. Most people just buy a computer and use it for 3 years, then buy another. TCO = purchase cost plus electricity bill.

Mac = purchase price - 2nd hand price (about 1/2 price new) + 1 or 2 OS updates from Apple (optional).

Fair comment - Mac's do seem to hold their second hand value very well. I guess their relatively small market share ensures a good demand for the few 2nd hand machines available. This does assume you sell your old computers though - I tend to hand them down to my children, put them in a different room for Internet access, etc.

PC = purchase price - 2nd hand price (virtually nill) + 1 OS update from Microsoft (highly recommended) + cost to repair/rebuild after virus attack (x N time per year) + cost of lost productivity due to viruses + cost of time spent getting peripherals and networking configured + cost of loss of leisure time due to above factors + cost of damaged relationship with partner

Microsoft release an actual $100 OS update about once every 3-4 years at present. Not $129 a year like with MacOS. Service packs and patches are automatically installable and free. With a free virus checker installed you don't need to repair or reinstall (I've never had to in 7 years of Microsoft). Configuring peripherals and networking is as easy as under MacOS - plug and play. All these reasons are entirely spurious and would be ignored by any Windows user as indicating that you haven't a clue about Windows.

I have no doubt the Mac is cheaper in the long run. But just like leasing an expensive car, even if the Mac costs more, you get a hugely better experience for a relatively small increase in cost.

I don't think it's cheaper. I don't think it's much more expensive either. But I think your approach to this argument is completely false. Firstly, you clearly are unfamiliar with both current PC hardware and also the use of Microsoft Windows which loses your argument all credibility. Secondly, I think you are missing the point. An Apple owner will never win the argument on price/performance grounds with a Microsoft/Intel/AMD owner. Whether you're talking budget, mid-range or high-end, there is inevitably a PC-based solution that is faster and cheaper. That's the economies of scale for you, and the result of open competition. Apple has neither the economies of scale nor open competition - it is a monopoly.

No, the arguments in favour of Apple computers are the maturity, stability and ease of use of MacOS which is unavailable on a PC and the quality of the hardware's design and ergonomics. The machines are not faster, but they're nicer to look at, quieter, offer adequate power for their own market niches, and are a joy to use. This doesn't interest 90% of the computing population, who are solely interested in maximising the price/performance ratio. So be it. There's room in this world for both approaches to computing. And there's nothing to stop households owning both PC's and Macs. I just think it's great that Mac's are finally within around 10-20% of the cost of a similarly configured PC. For me, the nice design and MacOS are worth far more than the extra 10% the Mac costs.

[toti]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Are either of those PC CPUs 64-bit ?

Yes, AMD64. Then you have a 64-bit coming from iNTEL as well ( and the Itanium.. )
Then there is the Transmeta, which essentially is a 64/128-bit processor emulating a 32-bit one..

Does the PC cost include the (essential) anti-virus and anti-spyware software ?

No, neither on the mac, nor the windows machine. ( remember, viruses running under OS9/Classic can do equal damage.. )

Is the PC monitor anywhere near the quality of the iMacs ?

Probably equally good, perhaps better. It is a well fed myth that Apple flatpanels are any better than the variants sold for PCs. A DELL 18" budget FP is marginally better than my almost twice as expensive 17" Apple FP..

I'd like to see a Total Cost of Ownership analysis in 3 years time.

A TCO report is highly dependant on the authors bias and circumstances. Virtually a useless piece of paper.

Mac = purchase price - 2nd hand price (about 1/2 price new) + 1 or 2 OS updates from Apple (optional).

PC = purchase price - 2nd hand price (virtually nill)

Second hand prices are very dependant on WHEN you sell the computer. The second hand prices for very old Apple hardware are in fact ridiculous ( like the toilet seat $350-$400 for an old piece of crap - hardware wise.. )

+ 1 OS update from Microsoft (highly recommended)

Huh ? We already know that there won't be any OS updates from Microsoft in the nearest computer lifetime ( 3 years or so )

+ cost to repair/rebuild after virus attack (x N time per year)

What about the cost of bringing your slightly malfunctioning mac to service and having the hard drive wiped ? ( VERY common ! )

+ cost of lost productivity due to viruses

Lost productivity due to program incompatibilities, hardware incompatibilities, bad drivers and flawed hardware ( remember the iBook ? )

+ cost of time spent getting peripherals and networking configured

Ever bought a piece of hardware that was not specially advertised as "Apple/Mac compatible" ?

+ cost of loss of leisure time due to above factors

Cost of professional time due to above factors ? Be they Mac or PC related ?

+ cost of damaged relationship with partner

Whut ?

I have no doubt the Mac is cheaper in the long run. But just like leasing an expensive car, even if the Mac costs more, you get a hugely better experience for a relatively small increase in cost.

The experience is invariably better, while you stick to the relatively more expensive ( and thus supported ) add-on hardware, and use your mac for the stuff it's advertised to do.

Unfortunately, when you start "Thinking different", your'e not allowed to. Not easily at least.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against macs I have had nothing but macs the past 2 years, except for a few old sins in the closet, and wouldn't buy anything else.

Yet I find it amusing that the Mac community is just as ignorant when it comes to the PC "side", as the PC side usually is about the mac.

And why is it that no-one compares the iMac v.s. an Athlon64 running SuSE Linux, 64 bit ? That's what... a year ahead of Apple ?

Oh... and for those who get an orgasm over 64 bits in Apple computers... Digital corporation actually did beat Apple. DEC beat Apple by 10 years. With a 64 bit machine. For the desktop. Running Windows !