Originally Posted by selectodude
Well, G5s don't compare to intel processors, so your argument is flawed. I challenge you to try and make a cheaper workstation then the Mac Pro on Newegg now.
Originally Posted by Jori
They arnt overpriced. For the size of them its a deal, PC's dont compare to them in that respect. And their "desktops" are workstations, which in a comparison go right with the price of Dell and other PC vendor workstations.
Besides which, now all the new ones that use Core or Core2 can run Windows XP natively.
Here is a workstation (some might even call it a server) about three times as cheap as an extremely comparable Mac Pro:
2x Xeon 3.0GHz Dual-Core - $203.49 each
TYAN Dual-Xeon S771 board - $304.99
2x 2x512MB ECC Server Memory - $134.49 each
500GB WD 16MB Cache - $174.99
2x 7300GT 265MB - $69.99 each
20" DVI monitor - $239.99
16x DVD Burner - $27.25
802.11g Wireless Card - $15.99
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse Combo - $24.99
Windows XP Pro - $139.99
The Mac I put together was $4,693.00
before shipping while this PC I put together on Newegg was only $1674.14
A screenshot of the config and the price is here:
I just wanted to point out that Macs are inferior because of both their OS and hardware. I installed OS X on a spare HDD of mine multiple times, everything worked flawlessly each time, but I ended up removing it even though it ran so much faster than on a regular Mac (I ran some benchmarks on XBench and scored very high on some tests with only a Sempron 3400+ and 768MB of memory. I scored over 120 on a few and the average was around 70. A dual PPC G% 2.5GHz was supposed to score 100.). On the other hand, I loaded Ubuntu PPC on a Mac and it was just horrible because it was so slow. Then I tried Ubuntu x86 on an Intel Mac and it was a little better, but my old (old, old, old) PI MMX 200MHz 63MB SIMM RAM could load Linux faster than the new Mac. Geez. Just my input as to why I think no one should consider a Mac. Unless they will be using OS X on a build of their own.