Do you even know what a 400SC is? Have fun doing anything even remotely graphic intensive on that.
Plus that price is without keyboard, without mouse, without an OS, without a modem, a 40GB HD, and so on.
I sure know what 400SC is. Being a PC user (and switcher), I will bet you money I am much more familiar with the PC tech world than you do.
Why would this machine have any problem doing anything graphically intensive? If the existing CPU is not powerful enough - you can use the latest 3ghz 800FSB processor. If the existing graphic card is not powerful enough, you can use the latest AGP 8x or PCI boards out there. Sure, it has no KB, mouse, OS (FreeBSD, anyone?), blah, blah but my point still remains - you can build up a 400SC and it will rival (if not beat) the single CPU G5 and save tons of money.
Would I buy one? Maybe, if I need the cheap, raw power but I am willing to a premium for the Apple solution. However, that does not negate the fact that PC is cheaper than Mac. To argue otherwise is going back to the argument that "G4 is vastly superior (and faster!) to P4" which more and more people are starting to realize it's a myth now that G5 is out.
Also, keep the OS argument out of this. I also see whenever people start to lose the hardware/cost argument, their argument starts to branch off into an OS flamewar, personality flamewar, ad infinitum.
I agree with Patchouli here. Apple hardware is overpriced - for a reason. It has to support its R&D, design, software, etc. I am glad to pay *some* premium as a result. However, for people to come in and say that it is not overpriced at all but is actually cheaper is just silly.
Also, keep the OS argument out of this. I also see whenever people start to lose the hardware/cost argument, their argument starts to branch off into an OS flamewar, personality flamewar, ad infinitum.
I agree with Patchouli here. Apple hardware is overpriced - for a reason. It has to support its R&D, design, software, etc. I am glad to pay *some* premium as a result. However, for people to come in and say that it is not overpriced at all but is actually cheaper is just silly.
It will be very difficult to seperate the two. Whether PC or Apple you buy a whole package. What can you do with a computer without an OS?
Apple sells you a whole user experience, buyers purchase the whole package.
Most PC's are designed for and sold with MS Operating Systems. This is a fact that is hard to get away from.
From my experience, mac processors are equal to Intel processors running 2-3 times faster. This is due to very technical reasons, most of which have to do with efficiency of processor and cache. The Apple chips are more efficient. There is a video and web page in the apple site I think it is in the ADC section, that contains an explination. So please, I beg of you, don't use processor speed alone to measure performance. I feel it only higlights ignorance, no offence.
But let's say that it is all based on chip speed:
Windows XP as it is sold today runs on approx. 2-3 Ghz machines. OS X runs on machines running from 800Mhz to 1.25 Ghz (not including the new G5 and Panther only because that combo is untested.), thus proving my point. Arguably, both platforms provide roughly the same levels of performance and usability.
Take the latest MS offering and run it on an 800Mhz processor and then compare it to the equivilent Apple running OSX. There is no contest.
As time goes on, chip speed alone may become a better indicator, but now it is not.
When you try to argue performance I do not see any way of excluding the OS from the argument. It is just another feature. Just as you lose critcal functionality if you dont have a graphics card, the same hold true with the OS.
Reliability is also an argument, because it also plays to the overall functionality. You cannot seperate these factors.
You people seem to be saying "Man this PC is fast, if you ignore the stabilty and bugginess of the OS, other than that it flies."
Well, I'm all for Macs, but Windows XP is remarkably stable. The only big issue is driver problems, which can be a problem with OS X as well. (On both systems, if you use the built-in drivers you're basically safe; otherwise, you're at the vendor's mercy.)
What, one can spend close to $2k for G5 and you can't spend $50 to get a graphics card?
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL Good luck putting an AGP card in there, and there aren't many new PCI graphic cards out there - ooh, the top of the line Radeon 7500 perhaps? [/B]
You are again incorrect. Radeon has a 9200 PCI card. Nvidia has GF 5200 in PCI, not too mention the Quadro series which has always been available in PCI.
It will be very difficult to seperate the two. Whether PC or Apple you buy a whole package. What can you do with a computer without an OS?
Most PC's are designed for and sold with MS Operating Systems. This is a fact that is hard to get away from.
Incorrect. This is what MS wants you to believe. Why are you, being a Mac user, buying into this? What is wrong with buying a PC, like 400SC, without an OS and then put MY choice of OS on it (FreeBSD, Linux, Debian, or gasp, Windows)?
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Apple sells you a whole user experience, buyers purchase the whole package.
I am not disagreeing with you here. I do think people should pay a premium for this and said so earlier.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
From my experience, mac processors are equal to Intel processors running 2-3 times faster. This is due to very technical reasons, most of which have to do with efficiency of processor and cache. The Apple chips are more efficient. There is a video and web page in the apple site I think it is in the ADC section, that contains an explination. So please, I beg of you, don't use processor speed alone to measure performance. I feel it only higlights ignorance, no offence.
You are lacking in experience then. If G4 and G3 is equal to P4 running 2x-3x faster, what is G5 then, 3-5x faster than P4?
Now, I will concede that G4 is more efficient. But x86 chips have since made up that and much more in faster clockspeed and faster bus. Nevertheless, this is not about CPU alone, like you have said. 400SC has similar architecture (AGP 8x, SATA, fast FSB, etc) which is why I brought it up. My original quote for 400SC is for a Celeron processor, for ***'s sake!
I am not offended at all by your statement; I am afraid that the ignorance you highlighted is yours.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Windows XP as it is sold today runs on approx. 2-3 Ghz machines. OS X runs on machines running from 800Mhz to 1.25 Ghz (not including the new G5 and Panther only because that combo is untested.), thus proving my point. Arguably, both platforms provide roughly the same levels of performance and usability.
The reason why Windows are sold on machines that are 2-3 ghz is because 1) why not? and 2) Motorola sucks! Intel has proved, and industry has widely acknowledged, that any deficiencies in architecture or code (not good things of course, but that is another toppic) can easily be made up by faster clock and FSB.
G3 was once ahead of the curve compared to x86 architecture. G5 looks to be competitive too. What happened to G4?
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Take the latest MS offering and run it on an 800Mhz processor and then compare it to the equivilent Apple running OSX. There is no contest.
I am running Windows XP on a machine with a VIA 900 mhz processor. A CPU known for its sloooow performance (roughly Celeron 700 Mhz) but for its coolness (<10 watts, able to run without a heatsink if needed). It runs just fine and is comparable, if not sometimes faster, than my iBook 700.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
When you try to argue performance I do not see any way of excluding the OS from the argument. It is just another feature. Just as you lose critcal functionality if you dont have a graphics card, the same hold true with the OS.
Reliability is also an argument, because it also plays to the overall functionality. You cannot seperate these factors.
You people seem to be saying "Man this PC is fast, if you ignore the stabilty and bugginess of the OS, other than that it flies."
Sure OS is an integral factor but Windows is not the only choice. Even within Windows you find people running various versions and you can hardly lump them together as a whole.
Personally, I found Windows XP to be very reliable. I reboot about once a week after applying an update or two. I do the same in OS X too. What's the big deal?
The thread title claims G5 is priced like a Dell. I, among others, are arguing that it is not. I am not making claim that Windows is more secure than OS X, or MusicMatch is better than iTunes, or anything else that is not directedly related to hardware. Why would you try to drag this to be a Win vs Mac flamewar again?
Incorrect. This is what MS wants you to believe. Why are you, being a Mac user, buying into this? What is wrong with buying a PC, like 400SC, without an OS and then put MY choice of OS on it (FreeBSD, Linux, Debian, or gasp, Windows)?
Now that is another story...
You have to admit that most big companies cater to MS and their OS'.
I will also agree that NT and NT based OS's are fairly stable.
I would love to see some build of lynux or unix ported both for PC and Mac (optimized for both, obviously) tested and see some fair comparisons. If you know of any let me know.
I always have a hard time believing one performance test or another, because they are run on different OS's (it seems). And it is always to support one side or the other.
I have always believed that the PC problem was with the OS (namely MS), and not with the hardware. Since windows 95 I have searched for some alternative, Most have been stable... Linux, I used to love OS/2 I wish they continued development.
Some one should invent a OS that is platform independant just to test raw cpu speed and performance. Maybe it is out there and I dont know it.
Any way, I must admit I am fed up with windows as a user and have embraced the Apple after years of MS use (since DOS) So, yes I am a little prejudiced. But I try to put that aside.
I am not trying to continue the PC v Mac retoric, I just would like to see it discussed in a fair manner.
400SC has similar architecture (AGP 8x, SATA, fast FSB, etc) which is why I brought it up. My original quote for 400SC is for a Celeron processor, for ***'s sake!
Would you PLEASE go to Dell and check the machine you are talking about!!!
The 400SC is Dell's smallest PowerEdge server and it DOESN'T have an AGP slot and it DOESN'T have SATA.
ok, granted, i didn't have the patience to read this entire thread, but a few things have been ignored when comparing these systems.
1.
You get firewire 800 with the g5...thats quite an upgrade. (does the dell even have 400?)
2.
The G5 its 802.11g ready...just pop in the AE card
3.
The G5 (assuming the 1.6 model has it) comes with OPTICAL audio input/output...thats cool shit
4.
The G5s case is without a doubt better designed...easier to work on/open, quieter, so on... (do you get front mounted firewire and usb 2.o in teh dell?)
5.
Was indeed mentioned, but needs reinforcement...the mac comes with software u can USE...ical, iphoto, imovie, idvd, addr book, CHESS! Ha! Eat that, mindsweeper!
Hehe, gotta love these annoying price comparisons. We all know Macs are more expensive off the bat than PCs. Two things to keep in mind though:
1- The G5s are new. Prices will come down further(on the entry level models)by the next Rev.
2- Have you seen a G5 in person? Have you seen the inside of a G5 in person? They're beautifully designed machines. You could absolutely NEVER compare a G5 box to a Dell's. We are paying for the design that went into the G5 for now.
I am not trying to justify paying more $£ for a great looking, advanced design case. On the contrary, I wish Apple had a cheaper G5 in a regular "uglier" looking case I know it's impossible because that would eat into iMacs sales.
Just because Dell wants to hide the fact that 400SC is a great value and therefore does not advertise all that it has does not mean it does not have all these features.
ok, granted, i didn't have the patience to read this entire thread, but a few things have been ignored when comparing these systems.
1.
You get firewire 800 with the g5...thats quite an upgrade. (does the dell even have 400?)
2.
The G5 its 802.11g ready...just pop in the AE card
3.
The G5 (assuming the 1.6 model has it) comes with OPTICAL audio input/output...thats cool shit
4.
The G5s case is without a doubt better designed...easier to work on/open, quieter, so on... (do you get front mounted firewire and usb 2.o in teh dell?)
5.
Was indeed mentioned, but needs reinforcement...the mac comes with software u can USE...ical, iphoto, imovie, idvd, addr book, CHESS! Ha! Eat that, mindsweeper!
1. No, Dell does not have any FW port. Adding a FW800/400 is not quite an upgrade.
2. Just pop in an 802.11g PCI card. Sure, it is not as easy as an solution but I am not debating that.
3. Indeed. If one needs that on Dell, buy an add-on card whose performance will beat that of any on-board solution of any vendor, Apple included.
4. I agree. However, Dell does have front-mounted USB 2.0 ports.
5. OS related point - already discussed.
Again, G5 is an excellent product, but items 1-3 does not cost $1000. Point still remains: G5 is not priced like Dell by any means.
Hehe, gotta love these annoying price comparisons. We all know Macs are more expensive off the bat than PCs.
Don't I know it! I did not start this thread! I think 99% of us all know that Macs are more expensive than PCs but are worth it (most of the time). Some, however, like to take it further... a lot further!
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
1- The G5s are new. Prices will come down further(on the entry level models)by the next Rev.
2- Have you seen a G5 in person? Have you seen the inside of a G5 in person? They're beautifully designed machines. You could absolutely NEVER compare a G5 box to a Dell's. We are paying for the design that went into the G5 for now.
1. Sure, but that's true for all computer products. x86 machines are not going to stay at the same price while G5's price drops.
2. Agreed. They are beautifully designed machines and both in form and function they beat Dell's. But just don't say they are priced like a Dell!
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
Your machine is not a Dell anymore - it's a home built system based on a Dell.
I added more RAM, an airport, and a FW 200 gig drive to my iBook. Is that a home-built system? Is a G5 that you added RAM to, an extra HD, and plug in a few PCI peripherals a home-built system based on G5?
I gotta agree with Gilsch here. If Apple made the G5 a stripped down machine for thousands of dollar cheaper but without the accoutrements that I mentioned and you had to install it yourself. Would you take it? Come on now, be honest JLL!
I added more RAM, an airport, and a FW 200 gig drive to my iBook. Is that a home-built system? Is a G5 that you added RAM to, an extra HD, and plug in a few PCI peripherals a home-built system based on G5?
Well you aren't really looking at that $299 Dell PC anymore are you? You are talking about buying a $299 Dell and end up using the motherboard and case.
The GPU? Out with that and a new one in.
The HD? Out with that and a SATA in.
The CPU? A new one in.
Optical drive? A new one in (if you want a SuperDrive).
That's a little more than adding RAM and an AirPort card in an iBook.
Quote:
Originally posted by klinux
I gotta agree with Gilsch here. If Apple made the G5 a stripped down machine for thousands of dollar cheaper but without the accoutrements that I mentioned and you had to install it yourself. Would you take it? Come on now, be honest JLL!
You'll then have an insane amount of bitching that the G5 wouldn't be expandable since you'll have to use at least two of the PCI slots to come near the functionality of the present G5, and do you really think that a G5 without SATA, optical, FireWire and gigabit would drop the price $1,000?
The G5 is a new machine with a newly developed motherboard (where's HyperTransport on the Dell, and your 800MHz FSB is a quad pumped 200MHz).
And no, I don't want to deal with third party add ons and third party drivers.
I don't buy the cheapest car I can get just to install many add ons myself either.
And no, I don't want to deal with third party add ons and third party drivers.
I don't buy the cheapest car I can get just to install many add ons myself either.
I buy a computer to use it.
Hey the thing that I think that you all may be forgetting here:
A lot of people are used to buying a PC that is really just a starting point. Then taking the time to price compare and buy all the desired components, install and troubleshoot, download the drivers. and coerce them into working. This has become normal to them.
Some of you seem to think that ordering a computer allready built and configured is normal. There seems to be two distinct viewpoints here.
Like I've said before when you take the time to do these things, you need to put a value on your time and effort. That is the premium you pay for the Apple product. Sun, SGI and many others try to do the same.
It seems that a lot of you want Apple to be more like dell or something. But dell and most other PC makers don't engineer or manufacture most of the components they use, save the case. It seems to me Apple wants to sell a complete solution, not just parts. I would argue that because Apple provides a complete solution rather than just parts, they spend less money on support, thus allowing them to spend more on R&D. I think the Apple Company should be accepted as what it is rather than on what Dell and the like are.
It seems that a lot of you want Apple to be more like dell or something. But dell and most other PC makers don't engineer or manufacture most of the components they use, save the case. It seems to me Apple wants to sell a complete solution, not just parts.
WRONG!
Apple engineers and designs just as few components as Dell or anybody else, and they certainly manufacture almost nothing themselves, it's all farmed out. The only components they use that are different from X86 ar the PPC chip and mobo/controller, everything else is industry standard, bought from a bin, stuff.
They assemble parts and go a bit further on case design than other vendors, but that's it. Dell, for instance, spends more than Apple on R&D. They just spend it in different areas (not support, that's not R&D)
Though the "implementation" might not be, the "components" in your mac are cheap, get used to it.
Apple engineers and designs just as few components as Dell or anybody else, and they certainly manufacture almost nothing themselves, it's all farmed out. The only components they use that are different from X86 ar the PPC chip and mobo/controller, everything else is industry standard, bought from a bin, stuff.
But the motherboard isn't just a little component in the computer - it costs millions to develop and Apple designs many of the controller chips themselves.
And even though they don't manufacture the motherboards, it's not a standard motherboard where the manufacturer produces millions.
Furthermore they can't get the same deals on the standard components as Dell can.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Dell, for instance, spends more than Apple on R&D.
In dollars, but that's not how you measure R&D. When you look at R&D expenses you look at them as a percentage of income.
Comments
Originally posted by JLL
Do you even know what a 400SC is? Have fun doing anything even remotely graphic intensive on that.
Plus that price is without keyboard, without mouse, without an OS, without a modem, a 40GB HD, and so on.
I sure know what 400SC is. Being a PC user (and switcher), I will bet you money I am much more familiar with the PC tech world than you do.
Why would this machine have any problem doing anything graphically intensive? If the existing CPU is not powerful enough - you can use the latest 3ghz 800FSB processor. If the existing graphic card is not powerful enough, you can use the latest AGP 8x or PCI boards out there. Sure, it has no KB, mouse, OS (FreeBSD, anyone?), blah, blah but my point still remains - you can build up a 400SC and it will rival (if not beat) the single CPU G5 and save tons of money.
Would I buy one? Maybe, if I need the cheap, raw power but I am willing to a premium for the Apple solution. However, that does not negate the fact that PC is cheaper than Mac. To argue otherwise is going back to the argument that "G4 is vastly superior (and faster!) to P4" which more and more people are starting to realize it's a myth now that G5 is out.
Also, keep the OS argument out of this. I also see whenever people start to lose the hardware/cost argument, their argument starts to branch off into an OS flamewar, personality flamewar, ad infinitum.
I agree with Patchouli here. Apple hardware is overpriced - for a reason. It has to support its R&D, design, software, etc. I am glad to pay *some* premium as a result. However, for people to come in and say that it is not overpriced at all but is actually cheaper is just silly.
Originally posted by klinux
I sure know what 400SC is. Being a PC user (and switcher), I will bet you money I am much more familiar with the PC tech world than you do.
Originally posted by klinux
Why would this machine have any problem doing anything graphically intensive?
Because it has a Rage XL card.
Originally posted by klinux
If the existing graphic card is not powerful enough, you can use the latest AGP 8x or PCI boards out there.
Good luck putting an AGP card in there, and there aren't many new PCI graphic cards out there - ooh, the top of the line Radeon 7500 perhaps?
Originally posted by klinux
Also, keep the OS argument out of this. I also see whenever people start to lose the hardware/cost argument, their argument starts to branch off into an OS flamewar, personality flamewar, ad infinitum.
I agree with Patchouli here. Apple hardware is overpriced - for a reason. It has to support its R&D, design, software, etc. I am glad to pay *some* premium as a result. However, for people to come in and say that it is not overpriced at all but is actually cheaper is just silly.
It will be very difficult to seperate the two. Whether PC or Apple you buy a whole package. What can you do with a computer without an OS?
Apple sells you a whole user experience, buyers purchase the whole package.
Most PC's are designed for and sold with MS Operating Systems. This is a fact that is hard to get away from.
From my experience, mac processors are equal to Intel processors running 2-3 times faster. This is due to very technical reasons, most of which have to do with efficiency of processor and cache. The Apple chips are more efficient. There is a video and web page in the apple site I think it is in the ADC section, that contains an explination. So please, I beg of you, don't use processor speed alone to measure performance. I feel it only higlights ignorance, no offence.
But let's say that it is all based on chip speed:
Windows XP as it is sold today runs on approx. 2-3 Ghz machines. OS X runs on machines running from 800Mhz to 1.25 Ghz (not including the new G5 and Panther only because that combo is untested.), thus proving my point. Arguably, both platforms provide roughly the same levels of performance and usability.
Take the latest MS offering and run it on an 800Mhz processor and then compare it to the equivilent Apple running OSX. There is no contest.
As time goes on, chip speed alone may become a better indicator, but now it is not.
When you try to argue performance I do not see any way of excluding the OS from the argument. It is just another feature. Just as you lose critcal functionality if you dont have a graphics card, the same hold true with the OS.
Reliability is also an argument, because it also plays to the overall functionality. You cannot seperate these factors.
You people seem to be saying "Man this PC is fast, if you ignore the stabilty and bugginess of the OS, other than that it flies."
-- Mark
Originally posted by JLL
Because it has a Rage XL card.
What, one can spend close to $2k for G5 and you can't spend $50 to get a graphics card?
Originally posted by JLL Good luck putting an AGP card in there, and there aren't many new PCI graphic cards out there - ooh, the top of the line Radeon 7500 perhaps? [/B]
You are again incorrect. Radeon has a 9200 PCI card. Nvidia has GF 5200 in PCI, not too mention the Quadro series which has always been available in PCI.
Originally posted by NaplesX
It will be very difficult to seperate the two. Whether PC or Apple you buy a whole package. What can you do with a computer without an OS?
Most PC's are designed for and sold with MS Operating Systems. This is a fact that is hard to get away from.
Incorrect. This is what MS wants you to believe. Why are you, being a Mac user, buying into this? What is wrong with buying a PC, like 400SC, without an OS and then put MY choice of OS on it (FreeBSD, Linux, Debian, or gasp, Windows)?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Apple sells you a whole user experience, buyers purchase the whole package.
I am not disagreeing with you here. I do think people should pay a premium for this and said so earlier.
Originally posted by NaplesX
From my experience, mac processors are equal to Intel processors running 2-3 times faster. This is due to very technical reasons, most of which have to do with efficiency of processor and cache. The Apple chips are more efficient. There is a video and web page in the apple site I think it is in the ADC section, that contains an explination. So please, I beg of you, don't use processor speed alone to measure performance. I feel it only higlights ignorance, no offence.
You are lacking in experience then. If G4 and G3 is equal to P4 running 2x-3x faster, what is G5 then, 3-5x faster than P4?
Now, I will concede that G4 is more efficient. But x86 chips have since made up that and much more in faster clockspeed and faster bus. Nevertheless, this is not about CPU alone, like you have said. 400SC has similar architecture (AGP 8x, SATA, fast FSB, etc) which is why I brought it up. My original quote for 400SC is for a Celeron processor, for ***'s sake!
I am not offended at all by your statement; I am afraid that the ignorance you highlighted is yours.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Windows XP as it is sold today runs on approx. 2-3 Ghz machines. OS X runs on machines running from 800Mhz to 1.25 Ghz (not including the new G5 and Panther only because that combo is untested.), thus proving my point. Arguably, both platforms provide roughly the same levels of performance and usability.
The reason why Windows are sold on machines that are 2-3 ghz is because 1) why not? and 2) Motorola sucks! Intel has proved, and industry has widely acknowledged, that any deficiencies in architecture or code (not good things of course, but that is another toppic) can easily be made up by faster clock and FSB.
G3 was once ahead of the curve compared to x86 architecture. G5 looks to be competitive too. What happened to G4?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Take the latest MS offering and run it on an 800Mhz processor and then compare it to the equivilent Apple running OSX. There is no contest.
I am running Windows XP on a machine with a VIA 900 mhz processor. A CPU known for its sloooow performance (roughly Celeron 700 Mhz) but for its coolness (<10 watts, able to run without a heatsink if needed). It runs just fine and is comparable, if not sometimes faster, than my iBook 700.
Originally posted by NaplesX
When you try to argue performance I do not see any way of excluding the OS from the argument. It is just another feature. Just as you lose critcal functionality if you dont have a graphics card, the same hold true with the OS.
Reliability is also an argument, because it also plays to the overall functionality. You cannot seperate these factors.
You people seem to be saying "Man this PC is fast, if you ignore the stabilty and bugginess of the OS, other than that it flies."
Sure OS is an integral factor but Windows is not the only choice. Even within Windows you find people running various versions and you can hardly lump them together as a whole.
Personally, I found Windows XP to be very reliable. I reboot about once a week after applying an update or two. I do the same in OS X too. What's the big deal?
The thread title claims G5 is priced like a Dell. I, among others, are arguing that it is not. I am not making claim that Windows is more secure than OS X, or MusicMatch is better than iTunes, or anything else that is not directedly related to hardware. Why would you try to drag this to be a Win vs Mac flamewar again?
Originally posted by klinux
Incorrect. This is what MS wants you to believe. Why are you, being a Mac user, buying into this? What is wrong with buying a PC, like 400SC, without an OS and then put MY choice of OS on it (FreeBSD, Linux, Debian, or gasp, Windows)?
Now that is another story...
You have to admit that most big companies cater to MS and their OS'.
I will also agree that NT and NT based OS's are fairly stable.
I would love to see some build of lynux or unix ported both for PC and Mac (optimized for both, obviously) tested and see some fair comparisons. If you know of any let me know.
I always have a hard time believing one performance test or another, because they are run on different OS's (it seems). And it is always to support one side or the other.
I have always believed that the PC problem was with the OS (namely MS), and not with the hardware. Since windows 95 I have searched for some alternative, Most have been stable... Linux, I used to love OS/2 I wish they continued development.
Some one should invent a OS that is platform independant just to test raw cpu speed and performance. Maybe it is out there and I dont know it.
Any way, I must admit I am fed up with windows as a user and have embraced the Apple after years of MS use (since DOS) So, yes I am a little prejudiced. But I try to put that aside.
I am not trying to continue the PC v Mac retoric, I just would like to see it discussed in a fair manner.
Good discussion though...
It would be interesting to see a performance comparison between the the same OS on different architectures.
Originally posted by klinux
400SC has similar architecture (AGP 8x, SATA, fast FSB, etc) which is why I brought it up. My original quote for 400SC is for a Celeron processor, for ***'s sake!
Would you PLEASE go to Dell and check the machine you are talking about!!!
The 400SC is Dell's smallest PowerEdge server and it DOESN'T have an AGP slot and it DOESN'T have SATA.
1.
You get firewire 800 with the g5...thats quite an upgrade. (does the dell even have 400?)
2.
The G5 its 802.11g ready...just pop in the AE card
3.
The G5 (assuming the 1.6 model has it) comes with OPTICAL audio input/output...thats cool shit
4.
The G5s case is without a doubt better designed...easier to work on/open, quieter, so on... (do you get front mounted firewire and usb 2.o in teh dell?)
5.
Was indeed mentioned, but needs reinforcement...the mac comes with software u can USE...ical, iphoto, imovie, idvd, addr book, CHESS! Ha! Eat that, mindsweeper!
1- The G5s are new. Prices will come down further(on the entry level models)by the next Rev.
2- Have you seen a G5 in person? Have you seen the inside of a G5 in person? They're beautifully designed machines. You could absolutely NEVER compare a G5 box to a Dell's. We are paying for the design that went into the G5 for now.
I am not trying to justify paying more $£ for a great looking, advanced design case. On the contrary, I wish Apple had a cheaper G5 in a regular "uglier" looking case
Originally posted by JLL
Would you PLEASE go to Dell and check the machine you are talking about!!!
The 400SC is Dell's smallest PowerEdge server and it DOESN'T have an AGP slot and it DOESN'T have SATA.
Maybe you should also do some research too?
Does 400SC have an AGP slot?
Does 400SC support SATA?
Source: http://www.aaltonen.us/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8
Just because Dell wants to hide the fact that 400SC is a great value and therefore does not advertise all that it has does not mean it does not have all these features.
Originally posted by tyson
ok, granted, i didn't have the patience to read this entire thread, but a few things have been ignored when comparing these systems.
1.
You get firewire 800 with the g5...thats quite an upgrade. (does the dell even have 400?)
2.
The G5 its 802.11g ready...just pop in the AE card
3.
The G5 (assuming the 1.6 model has it) comes with OPTICAL audio input/output...thats cool shit
4.
The G5s case is without a doubt better designed...easier to work on/open, quieter, so on... (do you get front mounted firewire and usb 2.o in teh dell?)
5.
Was indeed mentioned, but needs reinforcement...the mac comes with software u can USE...ical, iphoto, imovie, idvd, addr book, CHESS! Ha! Eat that, mindsweeper!
1. No, Dell does not have any FW port. Adding a FW800/400 is not quite an upgrade.
2. Just pop in an 802.11g PCI card. Sure, it is not as easy as an solution but I am not debating that.
3. Indeed. If one needs that on Dell, buy an add-on card whose performance will beat that of any on-board solution of any vendor, Apple included.
4. I agree. However, Dell does have front-mounted USB 2.0 ports.
5. OS related point - already discussed.
Again, G5 is an excellent product, but items 1-3 does not cost $1000. Point still remains: G5 is not priced like Dell by any means.
Originally posted by klinux
Again, G5 is an excellent product, but items 1-3 does not cost $1000. Point still remains: G5 is not priced like Dell by any means.
Your machine is not a Dell anymore - it's a home built system based on a Dell.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Hehe, gotta love these annoying price comparisons. We all know Macs are more expensive off the bat than PCs.
Don't I know it! I did not start this thread! I think 99% of us all know that Macs are more expensive than PCs but are worth it (most of the time). Some, however, like to take it further... a lot further!
Originally posted by Gilsch
1- The G5s are new. Prices will come down further(on the entry level models)by the next Rev.
2- Have you seen a G5 in person? Have you seen the inside of a G5 in person? They're beautifully designed machines. You could absolutely NEVER compare a G5 box to a Dell's. We are paying for the design that went into the G5 for now.
1. Sure, but that's true for all computer products. x86 machines are not going to stay at the same price while G5's price drops.
2. Agreed. They are beautifully designed machines and both in form and function they beat Dell's. But just don't say they are priced like a Dell!
Originally posted by JLL
Your machine is not a Dell anymore - it's a home built system based on a Dell.
I added more RAM, an airport, and a FW 200 gig drive to my iBook. Is that a home-built system? Is a G5 that you added RAM to, an extra HD, and plug in a few PCI peripherals a home-built system based on G5?
I gotta agree with Gilsch here. If Apple made the G5 a stripped down machine for thousands of dollar cheaper but without the accoutrements that I mentioned and you had to install it yourself. Would you take it? Come on now, be honest JLL!
Originally posted by klinux
I added more RAM, an airport, and a FW 200 gig drive to my iBook. Is that a home-built system? Is a G5 that you added RAM to, an extra HD, and plug in a few PCI peripherals a home-built system based on G5?
Well you aren't really looking at that $299 Dell PC anymore are you? You are talking about buying a $299 Dell and end up using the motherboard and case.
The GPU? Out with that and a new one in.
The HD? Out with that and a SATA in.
The CPU? A new one in.
Optical drive? A new one in (if you want a SuperDrive).
That's a little more than adding RAM and an AirPort card in an iBook.
Originally posted by klinux
I gotta agree with Gilsch here. If Apple made the G5 a stripped down machine for thousands of dollar cheaper but without the accoutrements that I mentioned and you had to install it yourself. Would you take it? Come on now, be honest JLL!
You'll then have an insane amount of bitching that the G5 wouldn't be expandable since you'll have to use at least two of the PCI slots to come near the functionality of the present G5, and do you really think that a G5 without SATA, optical, FireWire and gigabit would drop the price $1,000?
The G5 is a new machine with a newly developed motherboard (where's HyperTransport on the Dell, and your 800MHz FSB is a quad pumped 200MHz).
And no, I don't want to deal with third party add ons and third party drivers.
I don't buy the cheapest car I can get just to install many add ons myself either.
I buy a computer to use it.
Originally posted by JLL
And no, I don't want to deal with third party add ons and third party drivers.
I don't buy the cheapest car I can get just to install many add ons myself either.
I buy a computer to use it.
Hey the thing that I think that you all may be forgetting here:
A lot of people are used to buying a PC that is really just a starting point. Then taking the time to price compare and buy all the desired components, install and troubleshoot, download the drivers. and coerce them into working. This has become normal to them.
Some of you seem to think that ordering a computer allready built and configured is normal. There seems to be two distinct viewpoints here.
Like I've said before when you take the time to do these things, you need to put a value on your time and effort. That is the premium you pay for the Apple product. Sun, SGI and many others try to do the same.
It seems that a lot of you want Apple to be more like dell or something. But dell and most other PC makers don't engineer or manufacture most of the components they use, save the case. It seems to me Apple wants to sell a complete solution, not just parts. I would argue that because Apple provides a complete solution rather than just parts, they spend less money on support, thus allowing them to spend more on R&D. I think the Apple Company should be accepted as what it is rather than on what Dell and the like are.
Barto
Originally posted by NaplesX
It seems that a lot of you want Apple to be more like dell or something. But dell and most other PC makers don't engineer or manufacture most of the components they use, save the case. It seems to me Apple wants to sell a complete solution, not just parts.
WRONG!
Apple engineers and designs just as few components as Dell or anybody else, and they certainly manufacture almost nothing themselves, it's all farmed out. The only components they use that are different from X86 ar the PPC chip and mobo/controller, everything else is industry standard, bought from a bin, stuff.
They assemble parts and go a bit further on case design than other vendors, but that's it. Dell, for instance, spends more than Apple on R&D. They just spend it in different areas (not support, that's not R&D)
Though the "implementation" might not be, the "components" in your mac are cheap, get used to it.
Originally posted by Matsu
WRONG!
Apple engineers and designs just as few components as Dell or anybody else, and they certainly manufacture almost nothing themselves, it's all farmed out. The only components they use that are different from X86 ar the PPC chip and mobo/controller, everything else is industry standard, bought from a bin, stuff.
But the motherboard isn't just a little component in the computer - it costs millions to develop and Apple designs many of the controller chips themselves.
And even though they don't manufacture the motherboards, it's not a standard motherboard where the manufacturer produces millions.
Furthermore they can't get the same deals on the standard components as Dell can.
Originally posted by Matsu
Dell, for instance, spends more than Apple on R&D.
In dollars, but that's not how you measure R&D. When you look at R&D expenses you look at them as a percentage of income.