I'd just like to chime in with my own 2 cents here...

As some of you may know, I'm the webmaster of the (infamous?) System Shootouts website, which has been the subject of some controversy here before: http://www.systemshootouts.org/

Having made that clear, let me be the first (well, perhaps the 118th?) to say that even a Mac geek like myself wouldn't try and claim that a Mac is cheaper, at full retail pricing, than a *DIY* PC...at least in terms of up-front, out-of-pocket costs.

I always run my shootout charts between systems purchased directly from Apple's online store and other brand-name boxmakers' online stores (usually Dell). I do this for a simple reason--it's the only way to get a rational, reasonable comparison which retains any credibility.

Of *course* you can build a PC yourself for less than *either* Apple *or* Dell--for the same reason that cooking at home is cheaper than going to a restaurant, or that painting your living room is cheaper than hiring someone else to do it--IF you know what you're doing, and IF you're willing to take the time and patience to do it. That's the nature of economics, and of a service economy.

Doing most projects by yourself will, in general, be cheaper than hiring someone else to do it for you (assuming you know what you're doing), but will conversely usually take longer to do. When you purchase any sort of OEM box from Apple, Dell, Gateway, or whomever, you're paying extra to cover, among other things, the cost of labor to put it together. Therefore, the fact that doing it yourself costs less should hardly be shocking news.

At the same time, this fact is rather irrelevent to the vast majority of computer purchasers out there. This is a tech hardware website--of COURSE the regulars here all know how to put together motherboards, ribbons, cables, etc. etc., but you guys are very much in the minority. Most people who buy computers don't have a clue how to add a stick of RAM or a PCI card, much less replace the motherboard. Therefore, comparing an Apple pre-built box to a DIY system is, to use a very tired pun, apples and oranges.

Now, it CAN be considered a legitimate gripe, depending on your POV, that Macs don't have the *option* of being built from the ground up (they actually can be upgraded with new CPUs, hard drives, video cards and such, but it's a very rare thing to completely build one from scratch), but that's a completely different argument.

In closing, feel free to check out the new $1,300, $1,900 and $2,300 Desktop Shootouts to see how the new iMac G5 matches up against the closest thing Dell has to match it in terms of compactness/functionality (the Dimension 4600c "slim" model):

http://www.systemshootouts.org/

First, I am going to come to Diss's defense.

Folks, he was not trying to make a comparison against the iMac.

He was *NOT TRYING TO COMPARE WITH THE IMAC*

So to say his comparison does not match the imac is not the point....except in one aspect.

The guy *was* trying to compare with an iMac, so some of his choices may have been made *because* of that. For instance, Diss chose a $9 keyboard instead of a $20 keyboard. Diss's assertion is that he was not picking the cheapest parts, the articles assertion (I am assuming) is that the *cheapest* parts are not a good comparison.
Diss made a valid point that the CPU selected was inappropriate, but did not make a valid point that the keyboard was overpriced.

DISS:
#89, Actually, had he included the cost of a motherboard, he would be been off by another $100.

Let me try and explain again. It is my assertion that he *DID* include the cost of the motherboard. It is quite easy to purchase a mobo/cpu combination, and I beleive that is what he did. You made the assumption that he only bought the CPU, and forgot the motherboard. Just like he only mentioned the case, and not the powersupply, I believe he failed to mention the motherboard, especially considering the price was pretty accurate for the combo, but pretty high for just the CPU.

I'm not calling the guy a fraud at all. Not sure where you read that. I'm pointing out some very key flaws in the premise of his editorial.
While responding to you, I was influenced by others, my mistake.
However, you are claiming that he, in essence, is too ignorant to make a comparison, and indicated that he was trying to slant the numbers in the Macs favor. Slanting numbers sure sounds like fraud.

If you don't know enough about DIY hardware to know that a P4 3.2GHz is in no way comparable to a G5 at 1.6GHz and that you need to buy a motherboard, any conclusions you draw from comparing the price of a DIY PC system and an iMac are highly suspect.
He over estimated the CPU, and didn't know about getting the correct mobo. But that is *IT*, that is the totality of his errors. Gee, maybe he should have used the asus mobo, you know, the one that dies if you try and flash the bios? Maybe everyone should be at total hardware geek like many here are.
He *did* include a motherboard, it was your overzealousness that led to assuming otherwise. As far as I can tell, he didn't insist on the PC sound having a digital amplifier....that may add some cost also.

In my opinion, it was disengenuous, for you to reprice everything he did, since there were only two items of real contention. (and a rebate). OTOH, I bet if he used a rebate on the apple, you would have called foul.

Now, I think he is incorrect to include the full price of XP Pro..... the OEM XP Home would be more appropriate I think.
(actually, it would have been more appropiate, imo, to compare to an OEM machine....but whatever.)

I own both PC's and Mac's. The value in the Mac is the Operating System and the overall quality of design/style. If you could get MacOS for a PC, then the complaints about the comparison might be valid, but for me, at least, MacOS is easily worth $500 over Windows XP - if not priceless. Sure, that's a personal judgement, but it's great that there's a choice. I'm actually quite impressed that Apple's pricing is now sufficiently close to that of the PC that people are fighting over $200 here or there. To get within 10% of the cost of a PC for a machine with a far nicer design and OS that is at least 2 years ahead of Windows - rather than some noisy home-built mongrel with an uneasy blend of Windows and cobbled-together applications - seems quite an achievement.

I don't get dissing this guy for using Intel. Intel still has more mindshare with the masses than AMD, and before a couple of years ago, rightly so.
But in any case, he only made one comparison, so he had to pick one. Which means he had to not pick one. If he had used AMD, would you have blasted him for 'ignoring Intel'?

Now, you want to blast him for using a P4 3.2, that I can understand.

Now, as for saying his comparison is suspect because he didn't include a Motherboard and PS..... At that price, isn't is easily possible that it was included? I know you can get a Mobo with that CPU at Pricewatch for under that price.

As for 'he didn't pick the cheapest'. Is cheapest the best choice? My friend has been out a computer for weeks now, because of random issues from trying to DIY. Cheap parts are often worth even less than you pay for them.

Great price on the motherboard, until you Flash the Bios and it dies.
Great price on the case, except it doesn't quite work that well, and the PS is loud, and dies early... etc.

Look, except for picking a higher power CPU than he should have, he did pretty well. I am not sure that you can blast him for missing a few dollars here and there.
Diss went to his 'local website' to get the figures. What if this guy did the same, but his site was just a bit more expensive. He seems well within reason, unless you can point to something that was way extravagant.

Also, I know those monitors can use a DVI connector, but are they true digital, or do they go digital to analog....like so many do.

.

Sage03xst:
what about longevity. In 2-3 years i can replace the motherboard, power supply video card. etc as my needs grow. with the imac I have to deal with it until i can see a real need in spending 1300$ for a new computer. Plus all the configuration time needed to make it look and run the way i'm used to having it.
I like Macs, I think they are great. I think they are, in general, better than a windows machine.
If you came to me and asked what computer you should get, I would say "Don't get an iMac, you will not be happy with it."

*YOU* like to upgrade components, and think it is fun and worthwhile. *YOU* are quite the minority in the world. Most people do not like swapping motherboards and powersupplies. So getting an iMac for you is a lousy idea.
Now, many components can be 'upgraded' on an iMac, like DVD burner, or more HD space, or flash reader. Some is upgraded via internal, and some via firewire.
Some components can not be upgraded.

But many many many people do not really bother to upgrade this stuff. I would bet, that the percentage of users that have upgraded their own motherboard is pretty limited. *You* are the niche market, it is not a niche market that Apple is catering to.

I want to get one, I don't want to be stuck with the video card...... I may get one anyway....So I know what you are talking about, and it is valid, but it is only valid for some of us.

I shouldn't have to put a mortgage on my house to get a high end g5 system. I can build the same thing on the pc side for alot less money. It's a shame cuz i'd LOVE to get away from ms/intel world but i'm not about to sell a kidney to do so.
Well, I don't want to continue derailing this.... but I bet you could get away from MS/intel for a whole lot less than a kidney. I guess it depends on what you want to do with your machine, and how much you are willing to spend.
And yeah, a 'high end' G5 is expensive, so is a 'high end' Intel from Dell (or whereever). That is the nature of 'high end'

The page has been updated with an amd64 configuration.

That iMac has admittedly good value for a Mac.

- the cheapo case/PSU isn't very fair, and I'm guessing you're cooling the AMD with a stock HSF. The iMac is silent and small. That alone is probably worth $200 easily, if not a lot more. Anyone who tried building a silent small PC (either x86 or anything else) knows that.

- rebates don't count. Not only they're local to the US, but they're also not as reliable as one might think.

- not having to invest your time in building it and setting it up yourself ;) but it's a DIY-to-apple comparison to boot, so that and the service argument are moot.

- Issues are easier to track and discuss in forums when you share the exact same configuration with many people. That's why I think comparos should be done with some big OEM like Dell or HP/Compaq (service also comparable).

- You can lose the modem I guess. Who's a DIY enthusiast and is still on dial-up? if you're one, invest your money better ;)

- Add those $13 from the mouse to the Mac as well. Remember they come with the stupid 1-button mouse, with is just as it came without any mouse, cute as it may be.

what about longevity. In 2-3 years i can replace the motherboard, power supply video card. etc as my needs grow. with the imac I have to deal with it until i can see a real need in spending 1300$ for a new computer. Plus all the configuration time needed to make it look and run the way i'm used to having it.

I'm a mac fan do get me wrong. but the imac doesn't give me the flexibility i need in order to get into the mac world. I shouldn't have to put a mortgage on my house to get a high end g5 system. I can build the same thing on the pc side for alot less money. It's a shame cuz i'd LOVE to get away from ms/intel world but i'm not about to sell a kidney to do so.

Go ahead and flame me if you want but the price / performace of apple just doesn't make sense. but price / quality is a differn't story...

<fire hose in hand>

I think a better comparison to the iMac than DIY or Dell PC would be something like this: http://sys.us.shuttle.com/BuildXPC.aspx?id=1071

Changes made to teh Configurator:
- minus 6-in-1 media reader
- plus 52/16x combo drive
- plus 802.11g wireless
- plus 56K modem
- plus Labtec speakers
- plus Shuttle XP17 LCD

Thus configured, compared to the lowest iMac model, it has:
- no Firewire
- a faster processor (1.6GHz G5 vs. 2.8GHz P4); remember that G5 MHz are more like A64 MHz though, so they're not that far off
- slower graphics (R9100IGP vs 5200 Ultra discrete); they both suck, but the 5200 Ultra lays teh smackdown in this comparison
- 128MB more memory, because Shuttle doesn't have an option for 256MB, and the IGP graphics eats 128 of the 512MB

And it costs $1660, $360 more; subtract $50 each for the faster processor and extra memory if you like, for $260

Conclusion: The iMac is competetively priced.

First- let me just say that I am both a hardcore Mac user AND a hardcore AMD geek (I first leaned that way when a friend from college- Electrical Engineer- told me about a project he was working on- a K7 chip that was going to be really cool- he was VERY right ;).

While I believe the issue of osViews not choosing an AMD platform (or at least throwing into the mix) is absolutely true- they are making the world more difficult for the rest of us, I do take offense to the generalization that the Mac community generally is unaware of AMD. Mac enthusiasts/geeks/techies are more than aware. Mac users of the USER variety are much like PC users of the USER variety. And there are plenty of PC users who won't touch anything not Intel- because if its not a Pentium its not a PC- and plenty who aren't even aware of AMD at all. But go into that geek/techie/enthusiast category again and you've got a lot of people who are both knowledgable and fans of AMD products.

I do happen to believe that the cheap PSU/case are an issue for both- a good *quiet* PSU would be a better comparison. And since both the AMD and the Intel lists refer back to the iMac for reference (Dissonance, you do in fact do that when you pick the Athlon 64 over the XP or Sempron chips because of relative clock speed a 64-bitness) I do feel that noise factor is a tangible asset. And lets also make sure we compare to a dual channel RAM motherboard- even if not used as originally configured. Of course, I'd say that a sempron 2500 or celeron 2.8 is probably the closer comparison performance wise- a 3.2GHz P4 is obviously a much faster CPU.

osViews should not be a considered a credible source by most knowledgable enthusiasts- I'm sure there's a few microsoft/ati/nvidia/intel/amd fanboy sites that put out the same sort of misinformation. I just don't pay any attention to them since I decided to move on to more authoratative sites- like this one (generally ;)

STFU already people and start listening for a change.

The person in the article was trying to do a “fair” comparison. Putting a 3.2 intel chip that goes for 300$ into the mix? Yeah OK. That’s the whole friggin point you twits. As mentioned there are other inconsistencies such as the audio and so on.

Maybe you mac people should chill out and accept the fact that an article putting a good light on a mac could be… off… *GASP*.

If anything this shows that macs are finally not way overpriced. Even though this guy managed to screw up his own “fair” price war it is safe to say the low end mac/pc are about neck and neck.

Just accept that the article was off and move on.

Okay, I went and looked at the comparison a little closer.

$200 difference.

Diss saved $40 by finding a monitor with a rebate.
Diss saved $25 by using a better CPU/Mobo combo
Diss saved $100 by not including a sound card. (onboard digital sound.)
Diss saved $25 by using *really* cheap keyboard etc. (to be fair, I don't know how is stacks quality-wise with the ones chosen...but they are really really cheap.)

So, I can't blame the guy for no rebate. Nor can I blame him for not using bottom of the barrel peripherals. Apple has good perifpherals, you should not use lowest dominator to compare.

So what it comes down to is that Diss found a mobo with onboard digital sound; and used a more reasonable CPU.

Thats it folks, that is the basis for calling this man out....wow...what a fraud he was....

And, of course, you need to determine which is closer to Apple spec, the card or the onboard. Since I don't know if either has a digital amplifier built in....

So, this guy decides to do a comparison. Starts with Intel, because you have to start with something. Picks a decently priced mobo, trying to be fair. And along the way knows he has to get a sound card with digital in/out. Everything else pretty much falls into place.
Yeah, sounds like a dastardly deed, trying to fool the public this way.

Now, had he been $500 off, or consistently picked overpriced items, or only ultra premium items, or anything to indicate malice or incompetence.... but come on.

(Of course, he did have the audacity to compare a Mac and PC....)

Oh BTW, he used Froogle to price the equipment.

.

i totally agree with demani.

Mac geeks 100% know about AMD. I mean come on, what x86 processor company is working with IBM, the producer of the G4/G5? Thats right, AMD.
You guys dont think Mac fans know this?

Mac users (not geeks) are the same as PC users. How many PC users (again, NOT GEEKS) know about AMD?

I think that if there is anything to get out of this, it is that the current iMac is not that bad of a deal, if it generally matches what you want/need in a machine.

This is a big step up from the rather poor value iMacG4 for example.

Still, it certainly isn't for gamers, but they wouldn't be looking at a Mac anyway. I think that for most other tasks it is more than adequate though. I still think that at least the top model should have had more powerful graphics though. I expect the next revision will include that though. I might get one then.

Apple just need to add something inbetween the boutique iMac and the workstation PowerMac for the average person...

I work at a nationwide electronics chain. We like to say that we are the "Best" at what we do wink wink. Anywho you'd be surpirsed how many people just don't care. The only thing most people care about is a low price point. They make it hell for us to try and sell systems. The average joe schmo couldn't tell the difference between an athlon and pentium 1 if the pentium was cheaper and could play the sims 2 we'd be sold out of them. Nobody really cares about proformance at all they just want the cheapest thing availible like a celeron d. So you have to sell folks what they want. I'm going to honest though i'm not personally impressed by anything we sell. We sell like a trillion emachines a day and it hurts my soul, but to say that most people are unaware of amd is an understatment. Its pretty funny when a customer ask me what kind of computer do you have i just say well i put mine together myself but that was before i worked here. Lie even if i did work there before first of all with what they pay you you couldn't afford but a emachine . second like i said theres not a computer that would ever care to have. except maybe a sony or a gateway we have a gateway with a gig of ram and p4 3.4 and a x300 ati pci express not too bad for 1200 bucks. but the freedom i feel knowing that i could put anything i want in my pc was just too much to give up. No crappy sofware already installed going out buying the parts i wanted it was fun and i hope to better next time.

I didnt even need to look to see who posted this article. Diss is the biggest apple basher at TR. I just wonder what his mission is? The old my stick is bigger then yours? I think it's like a honda vs toyta thing I guess. My $.02: Apples are great machines too, yeah they cost more, and don't appear to be as tweaking friendly, but that's ok, I don't need to stick it to apple and their users every chance I get....

Okay, I went to dell, picked out a SFF office PC with -software/speakers/monitor/warranty,
It's not really configurable after purchase, and it's cheaper than the iMac.

This would have been a much more appropriate machine
to compare for the article.
I think COS has missed the point by a few miles.

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.

Why should they care? The much larger question is PC vs Mac, and whether Intel or AMD makes little difference in that comparison. Why someone that's already chosen Mac should care about AMD is beyond me, especially considering that most(?) PC users don't even know about them.

obviously he can't read like he can't post.. 8-P

You forgot to include the price of the arts-geek poseur training. It appears those classes come free with a Mac purchase.

Guys, read the post. I limited my critique to osViews' hardware choices, and I'm only comparing the cost of my hardware spec to the cost of their hardware spec, both exclude OS cost.

The larger Mac vs PC debate has far too many facets (software, OS, warranty, style, support, choice, expandability, compatibility, performance, etc...) to address completely in one post.

geoff i dont think you should be including a $57.25 rebate (for the monitor) in the final price of your specced system. especially when it expires in 3 days lol.

You might want to include the cost of Windows XP Pro in that price roundup!

Yeah, Linux is nice and all that, but then you might as well start pricing up how much your time is worth, both in building the machine and setting up the OS on top, especially if you don't know much Linux and you run into any of the myriad small problems that can occur, especially when upgrading Linux.

You also get a lot simpler warranty option on the Mac than by having lots of separate components. It also looks a lot nicer and is very small in the end - the tradeoff being that the Mac is barely upgradeable.

Whilst I'd say that a 2800+ A64 is still a lot more powerful than a 1.6GHz G5, I suppose that in the end, for what the machine is used for a lot of the time, it isn't all that much of an issue.

Oh wow, that case is nasty nasty ugly poo, and it comes with a noisy PSU. Pick a decent case at least, it will last through a few iterations of machine if you are lucky. The iMac G5 is designed to be as quiet as possible.

Certainly if I had the option of buying iMac G5s for my staff or building decent PCs, I'd get the iMacs. Of course, this is where Dell and Co. come in handy with their cheap machines. Of course, cheap has more than one meaning here!

While pirating Windows XP is fun, you should probably include a legal purchase in the price of the computer. That makes up the $200 (though that still leaves you with a nicer computer for the same price).

Edit: $100 or less. They wouldn't need XP Pro.

"I'm more disturbed by the fact that the Mac community seems to be largely oblivious to the fact that AMD even exists"

since when is osViews all the sudden 'the Mac community'

you guys are suggesting a case/psu combo for $37 ?

there are quite a few people in the comments section of your link saying they had psu problems.

I agree. The 16x9 monitor adds a lot to the cost.

Just not sure if it adds a lot to the value.

That being said, a person that buys an iMac is not just buying a collection of parts. It gets into the realm "lifestyle" object, like plasma TVs, high end audio equipment, and the like. The compact form and industrial design are worth something as well.