What's different about a Mac vs. a PC?

Not sure what PC you are looking at, but I just build two Core i7s and they aren't Xeon 5500s w/ dual processor and ECC, were built with good solid parts though and came in around $1895 (incl Windows 7 Ultimate and Pro).

They are quiet, you'd be hard pressed to build a better mousetrap!

I think a Bentley GT uses very similar hardware to a VW Phaeton. Take a look at the price lists tho. Why does the GT cost more, it's a better ownership proposition and it's nicer to use.
I think the same about Mac an PC. In the end though, +they both do the same job+. If to you, looking nice and making the job enjoyable is worth as much as the job itself you might get the Mac. If all you need to do is get from A to B and nothing more, does it matter what badge is on the bonnet/monitor?

Macs can run Mac OS X compatible software, legally without violation of license agreement, and can run Windows compatible software simultaneously.

PCs are not designed to run Mac OS X compatible software.

The firmware is different.

Macs are better integrated as far as software and hardware is concerned.
Macs are built more secure from the beginning because there is no root account enabled by default, and by default the firewall is set to stealth mode, which Windows is not. The time spent hiring administrators to manage PCs so they don't fail is often more costly than the cost difference of Macs and PCs.

http://www.macvspc.info has a lot of this info and more.

2Chuck wrote:
I'm taking the OS out of the equation on this issue. So because the brand and look of the Mac makes it twice the price?

Maybe/maybe not in this particular case but why not in principle? You don't like it, don't buy it. A branded trainer can be made in the same shoe factory by the same people as an unbranded one. It'll be significantly more than twice the price.

The branded food you buy in a tin is made by the same company as a supermarkets own range, using the same ingredients but to a slightly different recipe. Compare the prices next time you are out. I can't believe there are people around that don't know things like this.

You can build around a Bloomfield i7 920 for $289, sure, and W3520/40 for $600 but when you get into dual Xeon you are no longer in the game, and you start looking at WS and workstation boards from Asus, or dual socket from eVGA or SuperMicro for $600-700.

I just lost half a day over an Intel BIOS that would corrupt settings and S3 stopped working. Apple issues maybe one firmware update for the life of a board.

Or what is the difference between Dell and HP - or a PC, a MAC or a Sun Workstation...

The answer is - build quality. The Intel architecture is similar (or at least consistent) on all.. You can run Windows on all... but the way each machine was designed, the selection of components, the thought on dissipating the heat, on access to the internal components etc.. they are all different.

Can't compare a beige box to the case, organization and looks of a Mac... In fact - your question even applies between two beige boxes - the components used such as the SATA controllers, thermal sensors etc.. they all vary...

The cheaper the components the cheaper the machine will be at the end of the day. If you were to open a Sun machine next to a Dell machine - you knew why they were more expensive. Same with the Mac - the cost is reflective of component, design and market...

Remember that Dell started their business as a budget PC alternative to HP... so comparing the generic PC market to the Mac is not going to give you the answer you are looking for. (MacPro equivalent for HP or Sun was 7k... so they are not cheaper)

Can you build or get a cheap(er) machine.. sure.. but that does not make them the same class of machine. It was asked of Apple two years ago on their stockholder meeting: why do they not serve the lower class (price) appliance. The response: More headaches for less margin. I tend to agree.

I'm not looking to buy anything anytime soon, but I'm just curious about it and want to become, not knowledgeable, but an aware consumer.

Then you haven't looked to see the $1200 BTO 3.3GHz (single socket only).

Wish you had stated your intent up front.

For more and if you want to be knowledgeable I'd hit MacRumors forum.
http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1

Still, there are a few things Mac Pro does not offer such as Nvidia Quadro series video card

It is available as an add-on
<http://store.apple.com/us/product/TW386LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ&mco=MTA4MzU2Nzg&s= topSellers>
Since you can't buy the Mac Pro with it built-in, you will end up with a left over NVIDIA GeForce GT 120, but it's on;y $150.

I don't agree with your premise at all. There aren't any low end Macs to compete with low end PC's. But price a machine that's exactly comparable to the Mac Pro from Dell or HP and you won't find it cheaper.

direwolf8 wrote:
I don't agree with your premise at all. There aren't any low end Macs to compete with low end PC's. But price a machine that's exactly comparable to the Mac Pro from Dell or HP and you won't find it cheaper.

Exactly, I've compared like systems to all 3 of my Macs (20" Intel C2D iMac, Dual 2,8GHz Mac Pro, 15" MBP) and almost every comparison between Dell, HP and Toshiba with like (sometimes exact) configurations were the same cost, if not more expensive. While Apple doesn't offer bottom-of-the-basement prices on any of their systems, what they do provide is very competitively priced compared to PC offerings. I can also tell you that out of the 9 computer systems in my house, 6 of them are PCs. I've had less problems with my iMac that I bought 3 years ago than any other computer in the house.

direwolf8 wrote:
I don't agree with your premise at all. There aren't any low end Macs to compete with low end PC's. But price a machine that's exactly comparable to the Mac Pro from Dell or HP and you won't find it cheaper.
******************************************************************************** **********************

"Joe Public" obviously agrees with you. Well the American "JP" anyway!

Because, according to recent surveys, carried out by market analysts in the USA and reported in both MacWorld UK and MacFormat UK, 9 out of 10 of all personal computers sold costing $1,000 or more there are Apple Macs. Actually, to split hairs, in one report the figure was 91%.

So either 90/91% of all Americans purchasing personal computers costing $1,000 or more are idiots with more money than sense, or they realise and appreciate that the Mac is in fact excellent value for money.

Why should Apple drop its standards to compete in the sub $1,000 sector when it dominates the higher quality market?

I just wish that the British "Joe Public" had as much sense as its American counterpart, and then we would have access to the much wider range of Mac related accessories that you enjoy in the States.

Apple's share of the market here is increasing steadily, as more and more people are realising that £ for £ Macs are better value than their PC imitators when you compare like for like.

When you also consider the longevity of most Macs compared to PCs, that there are fewer problems with the hardware, and that generally maintenance costs are considerably lower, then buying a Mac makes even more sense.

Add the superior Mac OS to the equation, and the decision of whether to buy a Mac or a PC is a "No Brainer", especially as the Mac will even accommodate those users who still need to use "Dimdows". Sorry, I meant "Windows"!

First of all, if you are finding the Mac Pro costs twice as much as competing products, you're not equipping the PCs fairly. i7 and Xeon are not equal. My comparisons have led me to conclude that the Mac Pro is actually quite a bargain, considering all the hardware.

Just look at the design. And it's not just for looks, either. Take a look at the inside of a Mac Pro.
Xeon Processors, Dual Ethernet, fully-buffered ECC RAM, FireWire 800...
All the moving parts are silicone-mounted. This makes the machine quieter and isolates the hard drives from vibrations from things like cooling fans and each other, and helps prevent read and write errors caused by vibrations. It's a fanatically-crafted machine.

The Mac Pro is designed for maximum reliability in desktop form. It is built with near-server-grade parts. The Mac Pro bridges the gap between a traditional server and a desktop machine. No other machine that I have seen really fits in that gap so nicely.

On top of all that, it actually looks good! You can put it on your desk and not be embarrassed for other people to see it!

All that being said, the Mac Pro is overkill for most people. It's not for everyone.

2Chuck wrote:
If I have the money, my next computer will be a Mac. However, I do not understand why Mac machines are twice the price of a PC with same hardware specs.

2Chuck, you need to do a bit more homework to understand this better...like use Macs for 20+years.
Also, I think if you rephrase your question to "Why are PCs half the price of Macs?" and stop and think about it for a minute or two...you may start to understand things a bit.
You are trying to be too "black and white" and like most things in life, it's just not that easy.

2Chuck wrote:
I'm taking the OS out of the equation on this issue. So because the brand and look of the Mac makes it twice the price?

2Chuck.... more homework... more homework...
You are missing the big picture as it flies right over your head.
Take the OS out of the equation??? Why the heck would you do that?
Would a Ferrari be equal to a Hyundai if you took the hand made, hand assembled 12 cylinder engine out from under the hood simple because you can't afford the price?
Dude, spend your money as you wish... one Mac or two PCs... your choice, not ours. Ask any long time Mac user if he feels he's paid too much money for his computers over the years and see what they tell you. Either buy or don't buy. It really is that simple.

Message was edited by: Rufus