Originally Posted by buceta
Even if your prices are correct your conclusion is wrong, especially when developers start taking advantage of grand central dispatch and OpenCL for leveraging multiple cores. By then you will be able to achieve with one Mac Pro the same performance as multiple PC machines.
Eh, I've seen what similar technologies, like CUDA and Stream, can do, and at the moment I'm not impressed. The most it does is offload some of the work off the CPU, allowing you to maybe push a few more tasks simultaneously. It will be useful going forward, but with CPUs as powerful as they are these days, the difference is marginal. Besides, OpenCL is just that - an open standard. There's nothing preventing Microsoft from integrating it in the future.
You're computer will be more efficient, but it won't have the same performance as "multiple PC machines" in a single Mac Pro. That's just silly.
Originally Posted by Quantz
Exactly. I don't have time to do what you do, and Apple does it very well with (for) me.
M$oft, HP and others, not so.
And you know what? I couldn't agree with you more. I said earlier that I'm *very* impressed how Apple handled my iPhone 3G replacement when I told them the reception was bad. I didn't even need to prove it to them, they just fixed the problem by giving me a new phone. If that's the kind of customer care they offer with their computers, I'd say Mac owners are very fortunate ^_^.
Originally Posted by solipsism
Show me a high-end workstation from any major PC vendor that is cheaper than off the shelf cheap components? You are paying for many thing when you buy a pre-made PC. If a PC vendor doesn't offer the machine you want you go to the next one or build your own.
I think you read my post wrong, friend. I said you can *build* machines far cheaper than anyone else, Apple or others. I didn't say off-the-shelf PCs are cheaper than the ones you build yourself, although you can still buy them for less than typical high-end Macs, and you have the choice of what you actually want to buy. You can save about $300 and buy it without a monitor, for example.
Originally Posted by buceta
Because you won't be saving a lot of money but you will lose software-hardware integration, support and reliability.
Again with this "software-hardware integration" FUD. You're not making yourself clear about this, despite being called out on it numerous times now. Imagine the integration an iPhone has with iTunes, and how seamless they synchronize together. Now imagine being able to do that with ANY device you own, and have just as seamless of an experience. That's what Windows 7's new Sync Center and Devices categories do. They go beyond iTunes because they work with anything. This same technology is built into "Microsoft Sync" enabled vehicles, like the ones built into Fords. Either through a usb connector or bluetooth, you can hook up ANY media playback device to the car and it just works. Phones, MP3 players, you name it.
And again with the reliability crap. Read the reviews, my friend. Try it for yourself. Windows 7 is *MUCH* more reliable than any of its predecessors, and is damn near as stable as a Mac. I can go weeks without rebooting my Windows box, similar how I could go weeks with my Mac without rebooting. And don't kid yourself... Macs have to reboot sometimes too.