# If OS X could run on a PC would you buy a Mac



## anal-log (Feb 22, 2003)

IF OS X could be run natively on a PC with the same reliablity (and unreliablity) hardware and softwarewise. Would you still buy a Mac


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

i probably wouldn't. my friend just built a new computer with an athlon 64 chip and it screams past a single G5 no problem in bench marks. if apple ever did make a mac os for pc, microsoft would then have serious competition.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Definately not. Apple's are only updated in sparse groups and are most certainly not powerful lol.

However - run OS X on a dual core P4 e/e and it would be SO much faster than the dual G5s. Game would run much better too.

I wish they wouldn't do that though because more users = more viruses = OS X ending up a pretty looking but no more functional version of windows


----------



## bmovie (Jan 18, 2003)

NO I wouldn't by a MAC....remember guys the MAC is only a MAC because of the OS.

PC parts are by far cheaper and more abundant and had to say it superior in many ways.

I have always said to my buddies if OS X can run on a PC - I'm there!


----------



## Steve-O (Apr 7, 2005)

bmovie said:


> NO I wouldn't by a MAC....remember guys the MAC is only a MAC because of the OS.
> 
> PC parts are by far cheaper and more abundant and had to say it superior in many ways.
> 
> I have always said to my buddies if OS X can run on a PC - I'm there!



-ditto-


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Hah looks like Apple is only running cuz of its OS.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Yes I would still buy a Mac, why? Design of the actual computer would be more pleasing to the eye. Macs would still be lighter and more sexier looking then any other PC running OS X. I would still prefer the hardware choices designed by Apple then any other PC manufacturer no matter what the cost. My TCO would still be higher if I owned a Mac running OS X instead of an x86 PC running OS X.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

I'd pick function over form anyday.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

For what I do, there's no cost savings with Intel hardware vs Apple hardware. Trust me, I've built comparable systems on both. The Intel stuff cost thousands too, by the time it was up to the job I need it to do. For example, with Intel/AMD stuff I need a mobo with a minimum of 6 PCI slots plus an AGP slot (that would leave me with zero free slots; I have one free on the G4 now).

Were I someone who just surfed the web, checked eMail, and wrote notes in a Word Processor with the computer then you can find some inexpensive PC hardware to play with. Not for The Real Work, though.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

gordguide said:


> For what I do, there's no cost savings with Intel hardware vs Apple hardware. Trust me, I've built comparable systems on both.


Gord, care to elaborate? 
I'm not doubting here, just would like a real world example.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

bmovie said:


> NO I wouldn't by a MAC....remember guys the MAC is only a MAC because of the OS.
> 
> PC parts are by far cheaper and more abundant and had to say it superior in many ways.
> 
> I have always said to my buddies if OS X can run on a PC - I'm there!


PC parts may be cheaper, and more abundant but with it comes a lot of crap. It's one of the reasons that Windows is seen to be so flakey. The hardware configurations play havok with Windows no matter how hard people try. Besides a lot of the cheap PCs you get are problems because of the cheap hardware included with them.

On a side note, it's Mac not MAC. MAC denotes an address used to identify a network interface (eg. Airport, Ethernet - which is why in OS X it is known as the Airport ID instead of the MAC Address).


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

If you're gonna get picky, It's Apple Macintosh.

We all understand what he means.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Apple hardware generally requires less maintenance and repair...

They have their moments but return trips to a repair shop are much fewer and farther between.

If it were just the OS, Gates would have copied it better...


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Definitely would still buy a Mac. Form-factor does matter to me, and I can't stand something that looks ugly as hell, i.e; every single PC casing that exists.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Lars said:


> Definitely would still buy a Mac. Form-factor does matter to me, and I can't stand something that looks ugly as hell, i.e; every single PC casing that exists.


That's a wicked overstatement.

Lian-Li and Coolermaster make beautiful cases. The Shuttle PCs are nice looking too. 

There are TONS of PC cases that IMO look more interesting than the G3-G5 PowerMacs. It gets hard to try and mimic the iMac though, and all have failed.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree. There are many cases on the market that look quite nice.

Lars, I seriously doubt you've seen "every PC case" that exists.

Problem with the nice ones is that they cost a fortune, and would probably bring the cost of the computer pretty close to the Mac anyway. I do agree that by the time you get quality parts matched up, and the computer looking half decent, you're probably pretty close to the cost of a Mac, because Apple has lowered their prices significantly over the past couple years to make their machines a lot more affordable.


----------



## speckledmind (Jan 12, 2005)

Not a chance, even if they gave me the PC to go with it.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

That doesn't make you devoted it makes you an airhead.


----------



## anal-log (Feb 22, 2003)

Lars said:


> Definitely would still buy a Mac. Form-factor does matter to me, and I can't stand something that looks ugly as hell, i.e; every single PC casing that exists.


Okay Lars what about this form factor. PC CASE


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 21, 2004)

I'd still buy a Mac because I like the style, and the integration between hardware and OS probably can't be matched with off-the-shelf cheap no-name components.

HOWEVER I would try really, really hard to load the imaginary OS onto my tiny Toshiba Libretto because I just love the mini-laptop formfactor. 

In other words, I want a powerbook that's the size of a VHS cassette. Or better yet, the size of one of those DVD cases. (just a keyboard, screen, hard drive, usb, firewire, airport and that's it. Please?)

-Stephanie


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

JAMG said:


> Apple hardware generally requires less maintenance and repair...
> 
> They have their moments but return trips to a repair shop are much fewer and farther between.
> 
> If it were just the OS, Gates would have copied it better...


how is Apple hardware require less maintenaince and repair? i don't see Mac hardware being so much different, if at all, over a PC. i've owned countless PC parts that have become obsolete before being broken.



Chealion said:


> PC parts may be cheaper, and more abundant but with it comes a lot of crap. It's one of the reasons that Windows is seen to be so flakey. The hardware configurations play havok with Windows no matter how hard people try. Besides a lot of the cheap PCs you get are problems because of the cheap hardware included with them.


it all comes down to purchasing REPUTABLE hardware, not any crap that you can find for cheap. i haven't had much problems with hardware, and any i did have from purchasing "cheaper", i went in fully aware of possible quality issues. you get what you pay for. i'm sure a lot of hardware related problems are because ppl are ignorant, or skimped on quality.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

anal-log said:


> Okay Lars what about this form factor. PC CASE



Thats ugly, Id much rather get a G5 case off eBay for $80 and NOT massacre the front


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

here's a case i'd like to get:

Asus Vento 3600


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

I would definitely continue to buy Mac. Why? Quality.

We have one token PC here in the studio, to read PC-based files and view web sites in case the Macs have problems with it. But the thing is so clunky and unattractive, and its a brand name too, not a thrown-together Freakenstein of a computer.

I like my computers to work when I turn them on. A PC is so full of holes, adding any additional components is a horrible pain.

Take a plain box, throw in a board some ram, hard disk, oh and a card for this, that and the other thing [cause none of it is part of the base]... yada, yada, yada.

Unless of course you're a kid who just uses it to play games - which means this discussion is pointless.

My brother-in-law just bragged about this hunk of crap he had put together for $1600. I pointed to an iMac on the web for $1599. He just about sh!t himself. His is a mish-mash of plastics and crap. The iMac is a sleek all-in-one unit and blows away the look of almost every PC. Once the PC manufacturers wake up and start designing systems that looks like Macs, Apple has moved on to the next phase and blown their previous models out of the water too.

Mac all the way. I'll spend the extra few dollars [though it's not that much of difference any more] and get an incredibly bullet-proof and gorgeous-looking machine I can enjoy.

Wasn't Apple and 1 PC manufacturer just rated tops in service repairs? While the manufacturers like Gateway who "build it for you" were the absolute worst. Speaks volumes.


----------



## Troutmagnet (Jul 30, 2002)

MacGYVER said:


> Yes I would still buy a Mac, why? Design of the actual computer would be more pleasing to the eye. Macs would still be lighter and more sexier looking then any other PC running OS X. I would still prefer the hardware choices designed by Apple then any other PC manufacturer no matter what the cost. My TCO would still be higher if I owned a Mac running OS X instead of an x86 PC running OS X.


To tell you the truth, my Macs are always hidden under a desk... so I'd buy a PC anyday over a Mac if it could run OSX perfectly, but I'd choose Apple Cinema displays and peripherals, as the industrial design appeals to me and are the only parts of the equation in plain view.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacME said:


> how is Apple hardware require less maintenaince and repair? i don't see Mac hardware being so much different, if at all, over a PC.


It does not. 
Motherboards for Apple are from Foxconn (the same people who make Dell motherboards)
SuperDrive are mostly Pionner Drives
HardDrive = commercially available SATA drive
videocards = same as PC cards but always seem to be a few models behind


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It does not.
> Motherboards for Apple are from Foxconn (the same people who make Dell motherboards)
> SuperDrive are mostly Pionner Drives
> HardDrive = commercially available SATA drive
> videocards = same as PC cards but always seem to be a few models behind


thanks for re-inforcing my point.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> IF OS X could be run natively on a PC with the same reliablity (and unreliablity) hardware and softwarewise. Would you still buy a Mac


The question assumes the same level of reliability, which excludes much of the low-end stuff used in PCs.

That leads to my deciding point: cost effectiveness. To have the same level of reliability a non-Apple machine running OS X would probably be pretty much the same as Apple in terms of cost. Remember, if OS X were available in other machines Apple would have to cut margins a bit here and there.

If this were the case I would probably stick with Apple, simply because if I do need support, it's really nice having one number to call. I haven't needed much support with my Macs, but when I (or our tech team) do need it, it's simpler than with our Dells and HPs. Apple never give us the Hardware maker / MS two-step, in which each blames the other for the problem.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Stephanie said:


> I'd still buy a Mac because I like the style, and the integration between hardware and OS probably can't be matched with off-the-shelf cheap no-name components.
> 
> HOWEVER I would try really, really hard to load the imaginary OS onto my tiny Toshiba Libretto because I just love the mini-laptop formfactor.
> 
> ...


Cheers to that! I loved my Librettos.. the form factor is awesome. I'd sell my Powerbook in a second if Apple released a sub-notebook with that form.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Since most people have seen that to match quality - a PC will be the same price as a Mac - I think I would still buy a PC, because of the gaming capabilites 

One thing that you cannot disagree with me about is the fact that Macs are less than satisfactory at running games than their Wintel counterparts.


----------



## green_ears (Feb 26, 2005)

anal-log said:


> IF OS X could be run natively on a PC with the same reliablity (and unreliablity) hardware and softwarewise. Would you still buy a Mac


Yes, I've yet to see a PC assembled with the same attention to detail, originality and overall beauty of Apple hardware. It'd be like choosing a car from a selection of cars of different makes with all the same interior. I would prefer to go for style , good performance (not great) and good hardware quality than just full blown power in an ugly flashy body and not so great hardware quality.

But it all depends on your priorities... Just like some people prefer buying a new power horse american car every 2-3 years while others prefer saving for an elegant mercedes every 10 years... other prefer to go halfway and get better value for money and get a Japanese car. I'd still go for the Mercedes though, if I could still afford it. =)


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

i stole this name said:


> Since most people have seen that to match quality - a PC will be the same price as a Mac - I think I would still buy a PC, because of the gaming capabilites
> 
> One thing that you cannot disagree with me about is the fact that Macs are less than satisfactory at running games than their Wintel counterparts.


bah ... i gave up trying to chase the requirements of the latest and greatest games on the PC! having to upgrade every year just costs too much. i stick to strictly console games.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I'm using a Dell PC (office) and Mac G4 (home) every day and there is no question I would still buy a Mac even if the Dell ran OS X flawlessly.

Couple of reasons - some of which have been mentioned already.

1. Price for equivalent functionality on Mac and PC is now pretty much the same. High end Macs are actually slightly cheaper than high end PC's.
2. With the Mac I deal with one company if there is an issue - none of the finger-pointing I get with Dell/Microsoft
3. Many of the problems I'm having with the Dell machine are apparently heat related (not Windows software). I assume these would still be there even if the Dell ran OS X. CISC processors (Intel, AMD whatever) run at a much higher clock rate than RISC processors and thus get much hotter.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

MacME: I have a two year old Athlon 2800+ with a 9700 Pro. And it runs all the new games just fine.

You don't have to upgrade, It's more efficient (and fun) to overclock. The system is currently running at 3200+ with the Graphics card running at 9800XT speed (thank you, voltmod!)


----------



## Brian Scully (Jan 23, 2001)

*A side point*

If Apple made OSX that ran flawlessly on an Intel Processor it would be the second last version of OSX because Apple would not be around to update it.
Apple needs the hardware profits to allow future developement on the OS and the hardware sales would plummet. If Steve would not allow the clones you can be sure that he would not sell an OS that would allow people to buy PC's that would decimate his hardware profits .
There are more effective ways of committing suicide.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Pelao said:


> To have the same level of reliability a non-Apple machine running OS X would probably be pretty much the same as Apple in terms of cost.
> 
> ......Apple never give us the Hardware maker / MS two-step, in which each blames the other for the problem.


Apple overcharges for the whatever componants they put in the machines. 
For example, upgrade a 80GB HD to a 160GB and Apple will charge you 97$, I'd prefer to go down to my local mac dealer and pay 97$ and get a new 160GB HD AND keep the 80GB.

Apple give us the it's the software dance instead...


----------



## greymatter (May 17, 2005)

guys, what about the monitor?
Apple HD displays are sweet
I've had two LCD monitors by Samsung and LG...
they both broke down with pixel burnouts and stuff


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Apple overcharges for the whatever componants they put in the machines.
> For example, upgrade a 80GB HD to a 160GB and Apple will charge you 97$, I'd prefer to go down to my local mac dealer and pay 97$ and get a new 160GB HD AND keep the 80GB.
> 
> Apple give us the it's the software dance instead...


It sure seems that way. When I evaluated the mac mini configurations I looked at alternatives for memory, hard drive etc. and their relative cost compared to Apple upgrade costs.
But I also wonder if the quality of the components Apple uses is better. I have had my G4 now for 6 years and the original hard drive is still running with no problems.
On the Dell PC in the office, the hard drive had to be replaced twice already - once after only six months and the second time a year later. The hassle and wasted time to get the PC back to a usable state after each of these hard drive replacements easily makes up for the difference in Mac vs PC pricing if in fact there is any at this point in time.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*R & D budget...*

Despite the fact that over half of the people who've responded to this poll have indicated that they'd keep buying macs (and, keep in mind that the denizens of this forum are not representative of the general population) it's pretty clear that if Apple released Maklar (OSX on Intel) their hardware sales would take a serious beating.

Now consider that Apple makes almost all of it's money on hardware sales.

Finally, consider that the money that supports all the amazing software development that comes out of Apple, came from consumers who paid the premium prices Apple charges for its products.

If OS X ran on PCs, Apple would be out of business in 2 years, and software development would stagnate due to lack of competition (like it did through most of the 90s).

So, not only would OS X on PCs be the end of Apple, it would bring about another Dark Age for OS development in general. 

Maklar should be treated like the Ring of Power...either keep it hidden or destroy it completely.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

krs said:


> But I also wonder if the quality of the components Apple uses is better. I have had my G4 now for 6 years and the original hard drive is still running with no problems.


Dell, IBM and the boys to use some cheap componants. Not all componants are cheap but a few are - in an effort to lower production cost.

When it comes to Apple they are using PC parts - but charging you a premium price for them. In other words, you could "almost" assemble a Mac for a lot less $$$, with the same quality parts.


----------



## DP004 (Mar 9, 2005)

If OSX ran on PC's (total absolute integration ) and if PC's hardware could accomodate both OS, Apple's money would come from millions of new OS sales to current Win users. The profits on a new OS are huge and reoccur much more often than profits on hardware.
Apple will want to gain more users and Bill will try to keep up. Nice!
Apple will stop selling computers because they are too expensive and less powerful than Intel boxes but could continue on creating new members of the iPod family just for fun and to keep their designers happy and busy.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Would it really matter if OS X was ported over to the PC?

The average PC Intel user doesn't build their own computer. They don't know how many MB of HD they have or what speed their DVD writer burns at, all they know is that they have the quickest PC on earth told by them from some teenager at Best Buy or Futureshop. They bring it home and the very first thing that happens when they connect to the internet is? Virus downloads and spyware. That's your average PC home user which over millions exist today.

PC Intel customers barely even know that Linux, an alternative exists, let alone Mac OS X ported over to their Intel system as an option. That would mean Apple would actually have to bust open the loot bag and do some advertising. God forbid Apple ever do anything like that eh? 

Then there is the issue of actually having sales people who know how to use OS X, as I'm sure those millions of PC users would want to know how the heck to use this foreign system, that they were told before sucked and didn't work from some teenager at Best Buy or FutureShop. Then you would have to convince all of these millions of people that their software they own would work no problem with OS X on their Intel box and that the companies would support OS X on Intel plus also support Microsoft's OS. Oh the horror!

Could you imagine someone at Adobe going hmmmmm.... do I support Windows on Intel or Apple's OS X on Intel and what the hell is the difference which one I support? Aren't they both running on the same processor now so the code should be the same causing us to save a ton of money right? 

Would it be that easy? If so, I say get it over with. Bring on the 10lb or 12lb laptops that look like mini microwaves and bring on the cheap $399.99 PC that looks like it will fall apart on you the moment you sneeze .

My biggest question to those that said NO would be, why are you using a Mac now? Obviously it has nothing to do with hardware or looks, just the OS alone. If you're using Adobe products, why on earth are you using a Mac if a PC with Intel with Adobe products on it is much much cheaper to buy and run?

I read above that TCO is not an issue anymore that both the Mac and PC are equal now, so why even consider a Mac? Why not buy the PC Intel box for less then $500.00 and use that to be productive and creative? Another question I would have is, if you bought a beige ugly box with OS X on it, how much could you get in 5 years for it? Exactly not even close to what you would get for a 5 year old Mac running OS X. I guess form factor does have its place after all .

I can still remember when I had my G4 450Mhz Tower. Man that thing weighed at least 50lbs and when you picked it up, you knew you had a computer in your hands. When I pick up a beige box PC Intel computer, I feel like the damn thing is going to fall apart after hearing it creak and twist on me from not having any handles on the case. 

When I moved from the west coast back to here, I packed my G4 450Mhz tower into a huge cardboard box with tons of styrofoam and packaging. You could flip the box, kick the box and that G4 450Mhz was inside of a bullet proof container. or so it seemed. My friend laughed at me and thought I was strange for packing my Mac like that. My friend who uses an Intel PC, you know what he did? Tossed it on top of a box inside the UHaul and didn't care at all if it rattled around or got damaged, after all it was balancing on top of some boxes, which in the end, the bloody thing did crash hard onto the floor. So I guess if you have cheap parts inside the PC Intel box, I guess you really don't care what happens to it if it does break or get damaged in some way, you only have to go out and hunt down some cheap replacement parts all over again. 

I'm glad I own something that doesn't look like everyone else owns one, I love the fact that it gets attention and recognized from just looks alone, never mind the actual OS itself. When I do get a G5 PowerMac, it is never going to be hidden underneath some desk or behind some cases, nope, my G5 PowerMac will be displayed for everyone to see, why? The design of the G5 PowerMac has earned itself to be shown, it doesn't need to hide from anything, and you guess it, it has handles  .


----------



## bmovie (Jan 18, 2003)

It seems that some are getting off topic. Nobody here is arguing that the Mac (not MAC, as I was informed  ) isn't asthetically more pleasing than any PC.

the question was simple...if OS X could run on a PC would you buy a Mac?

and I still stand with my answer "NO"

a couple of reasons 

1: apples are overpriced. their components are overpriced. 

2: they seem to be just one step below PC's in certain technologies: ie: PCI X slots. the G5 just got them (is one that comes to mind)

Remember people...it's the OS that makes it a Mac. And I would support that all the way. 

I remember a buddy of mine going to Wall-Mart to pick up a Radeon card (don't remember the model) I said what are you goign to do with that its for a PC? He told me that he is going to flash it for a Mac. The card cost him $89 the same card for the Mac $219. THE SAME CARD!!!!  

enough said.


----------



## bmovie (Jan 18, 2003)

MacGYVER said:


> Would it really matter if OS X was ported over to the PC?
> why on earth are you using a Mac if a PC with Intel with Adobe products on it is much much cheaper to buy and run?
> .


Don't you get it? it is the OS. That's why we use it. It's more user friendly that any WINDOWS platform. The flow of the work, the fonts, the way you save files and delete them. The fact that the OS comes packed with so much to do. All of that. is what a Mac is NOT what its housed in. Because Apple doesn't MAKE the parts inside it!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

bmovie said:


> Don't you get it? it is the OS. ..... the fonts,


Dude, I was with you until the font issue - Mac OS X really blows when it comes to font handling. 
At least I can still use ATM deluxe on Windows XP...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

bmovie said:


> Don't you get it? it is the OS. That's why we use it. It's more user friendly that any WINDOWS platform. The flow of the work, the fonts, the way you save files and delete them. The fact that the OS comes packed with so much to do. All of that. is what a Mac is NOT what its housed in. Because Apple doesn't MAKE the parts inside it!


The OS is a big part of it but to me that's not everything.
The fact that Apple also makes the hardware is a big factor in everything running so much more smoothly on the Mac than in any Windows machine I ever used.
The Mac is a complete system - hardware and software working in harmony..that's not the case for a PC where the hardware is manufactured by many different vendors. I'm talking the complete hardware box here - the fact that Apple doesn't make the components that go into the Mac is irrelevant; they still select them, spec them, test them and put them together. 
No different than when Maxtor for instance makes a hard drive - Maxtor doesn't manufacture the parts that go into it either - the resistors, capacitors, transistors.
same for the other drive manufacturers, Seagate, WD etc. - but there are reliability and performance differences between the drives from the various manufacturers the same as there are performance differences between a Mac and a PC, just looking at the hardware.
Open up a Dell PC and compare it to the Mac. Just recently my CD drive quit on the Dell PC - or so i thought. when I opened up the box one of the flimsy connectors Dell used had actually come totally disengaged - very little spring pressure, no latch, and that was on a desktop machine that hadn't been moved.

For me it's definitely more than just the OS.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGYVER said:


> My biggest question to those that said NO would be, why are you using a Mac now? Obviously it has nothing to do with hardware or looks, just the OS alone. If you're using Adobe products, why on earth are you using a Mac if a PC with Intel with Adobe products on it is much much cheaper to buy and run?


We have so much invested in Apple version of software that it's less expensive at the moment to stay with Mac than to rebuy software. Not all licenses can be moved over to the PC. On some Adobe software, we have changed the license over to Windows when possible.

Also note that we buy the most stripped down version of Macs possible and add the componants ourselves.


----------



## eatr (May 1, 2005)

MacAndy said:


> Wasn't Apple and 1 PC manufacturer just rated tops in service repairs? While the manufacturers like Gateway who "build it for you" were the absolute worst. Speaks volumes.


It was Apple and Toshiba I think tied for Laptop quality, but for desktops it was Apple in the lead followed by Sony, Dell and another manufactuer, while Gateway did indeed finish last in both tests.


----------



## Carl (Jun 7, 2003)

I like the Mac OS because it looks better onscreen, has no viruses, and is very intuitive. No finding registry files or DLL's if I need to remove something. That is why I use a Mac. If the Mac OS ran on the PC I just built (which cost $1500 and runs Doom III at full tilt), then I would give up my Mac in a second.
I could have a low cost PC with option of upgrading the video card, motherboard and CPU and still enjoy the reliability of the Mac OS. I think this is a no brainer. What if you could build your own Mac mini, with 4 Gigs of Ram and a 256 MB X800 video card?
We're not talking beige boxes either. A PC can look just as "cool" as any Mac. I have a custom Aluminum PC case, and I have seen cases that look just like the G5 case. BTW, weighing 50 pounds is a negative isn't it? I'm glad my iPod doesn't weigh in at a couple of pounds, just so I know I have a quality item.


----------



## dcsf (Jan 15, 2005)

krs said:


> The OS is a big part of it but to me that's not everything.
> The fact that Apple also makes the hardware is a big factor in everything running so much more smoothly on the Mac than in any Windows machine I ever used.
> The Mac is a complete system - hardware and software working in harmony..that's not the case for a PC where the hardware is manufactured by many different vendors. I'm talking the complete hardware box here - the fact that Apple doesn't make the components that go into the Mac is irrelevant; they still select them, spec them, test them and put them together.
> No different than when Maxtor for instance makes a hard drive - Maxtor doesn't manufacture the parts that go into it either - the resistors, capacitors, transistors.
> ...


apple's build quality is no better than any of the other brands coming out of the same factory. collectively, my clients have well over 1000 macs and i see lots of hw issues. what's worse is that apple doesn't offer on-site service. when a box breaks, we have to hand carry it to a service depot. don't fool yourself thinking apple kit is of superior build because they're not. apple has better design, but that means nothing when the lcd, mobo, or any other component goes. 

as far as os x on x86... if that were the scenario, apple users would have faster refreshes with faster chips. intel beat ibm to dual core. you'll find dual core x86 laptops well before you'll ever see a g5 powerbook.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

greymatter said:


> guys, what about the monitor?
> Apple HD displays are sweet
> I've had two LCD monitors by Samsung and LG...
> they both broke down with pixel burnouts and stuff


You do know that the Apple Cinema Displays use LG LCDs right? And that the 20" screen uses a part identical to Dell's 20" monitor? 

The only difference? The Dell can go for around $300-$350 USD and the Apple goes for $799 at the latest bargain.

Its quite a good metaphor to use on all of Apple's computers really.


----------



## jonmon (Feb 15, 2002)

and the dell's have dead pixels and backlight bleeding (what i've seen on other forums)

anyways, back to the question, i personally would use pc hardware
oh so many choices and at such a low (relatively) price

i switched to mac for the os first, and asthetics second


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

its the EXACT same screen (literally, it's part# LM201W01).


----------



## bmovie (Jan 18, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Dude, I was with you until the font issue - Mac OS X really blows when it comes to font handling.
> At least I can still use ATM deluxe on Windows XP...



Ok you got me  

I will agree on that. Suitcase doesn't compare to ATM deluxe. Just wish they would have continued that for OS X.

Having said that, OS X is much easier to use....no viruses, is a big issue. But then again if OS X was able to run on a PC that might mean that more people would use OS X and all the more reason for the guys that create virus to start writing for the Mac, no? The only reason there are more viruses on the PC side is because there are more PC's being used and a virus would cause more damage.


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

I'm a laptop guy, and I don't know of anyone who makes a laptop nicer than Apple. Sony comes close, but there's no cost benefit there anyway.

So yeah, I'd still buy Apple.


----------



## Rush (Mar 4, 2005)

agreed on the laptops. I have never felt anything that compares to the feel of an apple laptop while typing.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

eatr said:


> It was Apple and Toshiba I think tied for Laptop quality, but for desktops it was Apple in the lead followed by Sony, Dell and another manufactuer, while Gateway did indeed finish last in both tests.


If you're talking about the results in Consumer Reports....these were results of a very large consumer survey not actually tests and Apple came out ahead every year for the last few years and by a good margin as well.
In the June 2005 issue Apple desktops came in at about 12.5% having a problem (survey based on 69000 computers purchased between 2000 and 2004) vs 16% for the closest PC (Sony). Gateway was the worst with 24%.
Clearly shows that even though all of these use pretty much the same components there is a big difference in quality - a 100% difference actually.
What I think is even more significant is the survey on tech support. Apple received a reader score of 81 with the closest PC manufacturer (Dell) at 57. Again a big difference. And only Aplle received top scores in all four support categories, none of the other PC manufacturers received a top score in any of the four categories.
Even if I didn't have a Mac today, based on that information I would jump on the bandwagen.
Laptop results were similar but the difference between Apple and the PC manufacturers was not that pronounced, in fact Toshiba edged out Apple in quality but by a margin that was deemed not significant by CR (less than 3%)


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

dcsf said:


> apple's build quality is no better than any of the other brands coming out of the same factory.


All I can say is that my limited experience with 5 different Macs and four different PCs differs and so do the survey results published by Consumer Reports based on 69000 computers.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> My biggest question to those that said NO would be, why are you using a Mac now? Obviously it has nothing to do with hardware or looks, just the OS alone. If you're using Adobe products, why on earth are you using a Mac if a PC with Intel with Adobe products on it is much much cheaper to buy and run?
> 
> I read above that TCO is not an issue anymore that both the Mac and PC are equal now, so why even consider a Mac? Why not buy the PC Intel box for less then $500.00 and use that to be productive and creative? Another question I would have is, if you bought a beige ugly box with OS X on it, how much could you get in 5 years for it? Exactly not even close to what you would get for a 5 year old Mac running OS X. I guess form factor does have its place after all .


why did i buy a Mac when i already owned a PC running all the appropriate gfx apps i need? cuz almost all the ads for graphics positions specifiy that you work on a Mac. the introduction of the Mini, gave it a low enough price point for me to pick it up. plus the fact that a lot of PC hardware is now compatible for me to use with it (keyboard, mouse, memory, hard drive, lcd monitor, usb hub, etc ...). if OS X ran on a PC, then i would have no need to buy a Mac, now would i? and i think that's the concensus for most of the ppl who had voted that if it did, then they wouldn't buy a Mac.

sure a lot of Apple's products are *aesthetically* pleasing. but beauty is only skin deep. inside a Mac, it's hardware is no better or worse than a PC, unless of course you buy the cheapest no-name brand stuff. so why would i want to pay a premium for it from Apple? plus selection and availability is the key for me when buying. ppl like *choice*!



MacGYVER said:


> I can still remember when I had my G4 450Mhz Tower. Man that thing weighed at least 50lbs and when you picked it up, you knew you had a computer in your hands. When I pick up a beige box PC Intel computer, I feel like the damn thing is going to fall apart after hearing it creak and twist on me from not having any handles on the case.
> 
> When I moved from the west coast back to here, I packed my G4 450Mhz tower into a huge cardboard box with tons of styrofoam and packaging. You could flip the box, kick the box and that G4 450Mhz was inside of a bullet proof container. or so it seemed. My friend laughed at me and thought I was strange for packing my Mac like that. My friend who uses an Intel PC, you know what he did? Tossed it on top of a box inside the UHaul and didn't care at all if it rattled around or got damaged, after all it was balancing on top of some boxes, which in the end, the bloody thing did crash hard onto the floor. So I guess if you have cheap parts inside the PC Intel box, I guess you really don't care what happens to it if it does break or get damaged in some way, you only have to go out and hunt down some cheap replacement parts all over again.
> 
> I'm glad I own something that doesn't look like everyone else owns one, I love the fact that it gets attention and recognized from just looks alone, never mind the actual OS itself. When I do get a G5 PowerMac, it is never going to be hidden underneath some desk or behind some cases, nope, my G5 PowerMac will be displayed for everyone to see, why? The design of the G5 PowerMac has earned itself to be shown, it doesn't need to hide from anything, and you guess it, it has handles  .


well if i paid a hefty $3000-4000 premium for a system, i sure would take better care of it compared to a $500 computer. and sure, who wouldn't want to own a pretty ACD. but not everyone wants to pay the cost of owning one, especially when there are equally functional alternatives that perform just as well for a 1/3 or 1/2 the price!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacMe -

I don't know where you get your numbers from but they sure don't match reality.
Right now, in the survey here at ehMac, just more than 60% of the people would still buy a Mac even if OS X ran on a PC......
and a $3000- $4000 premium for a system ?????
I paid half that much for my G4 (just under $2000) and the prices for a quality PC and a Mac are comparable.
For me, the Mac comes out ahead dollarwise, because I don't have to clean out ad and spyware every day; it doesn't crash and I don't have to contend with tens of thousands of viruses. Time is money.


----------



## gruegoo (Dec 28, 2004)

I love macs but... no I wouldn't buy it, I'd just run OSX on a cheap pc. YES the pc may fall apart, but I don't really care, I've been assembling and repairing pc's since I was 10. Basically if you have enough hardware knowledge that you can troubleshoot, and you're willing to take the time to fix things, there's no reason to get a mac other than aesthetics. 

For all those gamers out there... even if you could get a PC running OSX, why would you play games on it? Mac barely has any titles available compared to PC. You'd have to dual boot into windows to get any gaming done.

Re: Viruses (virii?!?) I assure you as SOON as osx came out for pc hardware and it was widely adopted, there would be tons of viruses, malware, spyware, etc available for it. Guaranteed.


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

gordguide said:


> For what I do, there's no cost savings with Intel hardware vs Apple hardware. Trust me, I've built comparable systems on both. The Intel stuff cost thousands too, by the time it was up to the job I need it to do. For example, with Intel/AMD stuff I need a mobo with a minimum of 6 PCI slots plus an AGP slot (that would leave me with zero free slots; I have one free on the G4 now).
> 
> Were I someone who just surfed the web, checked eMail, and wrote notes in a Word Processor with the computer then you can find some inexpensive PC hardware to play with. Not for The Real Work, though.



if you need 6 pci slots, then most PC mobos will have that. i have yet to see apple produce something with more than 4 pci slots.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

I would definitely buy OSX and put it on a PC.
It's the OS that matters, to me. 
I don't care what the case looks like as long as it keeps everything cool and quiet. 
Laptops are the same, my iBook is great but my daughter's Dell has a nicer keyboard, more expansion slots and better video.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Re: Viruses (virii?!?) I assure you as SOON as osx came out for pc hardware and it was widely adopted, there would be tons of viruses, malware, spyware, etc available for it. Guaranteed.


I am not assured. The logic you use assumes too much IMHO.

The ubiquity of an OS does not alter its vulnerability levels.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

GG 


> Re: Viruses (virii?!?) I assure you as SOON as osx came out for pc hardware and it was widely adopted, there would be tons of viruses, malware, spyware, etc available for it. Guaranteed.


Nope, not entirely true.

That's one of the strengths of OSX.
Check this out:



> By Graham K. Rogers
> Bangkok Post
> 05/13/05 8:00 AM PT
> It may or may not surprise you, but there are no OS X viruses (or worms or trojans), partly due to the implementation of OS X and its almost-inaccessible Root. Dr. Smoke, who gave me some advice on this subject, gives a clear explanation of how the problem should be viewed at the X Lab pages at www.thexlab.com/faqs/malspyware.html.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

krs said:


> MacMe -
> 
> I don't know where you get your numbers from but they sure don't match reality.
> Right now, in the survey here at ehMac, just more than 60% of the people would still buy a Mac even if OS X ran on a PC......
> ...


i think i didn't make myself clear ...

i didn't say a Mac costs $3000-$4000 ... although if you decked out *either* a Mac or PC, you can get to that price level quite easily. i'm saying i would *treat* a system costing $3000-4000 a heck of a lot more differently than a system costing only $500! this is for both Mac or PC system. heck, you can apply that to about anything of value.

as well, the benefits you list is to the OS X operating system, not to the Mac hardware itself. that's why this poll is *asking* if OS X could run on a PC, would you buy Apple *assembled* hardware. and i was trying to state that probably most ppl who voted that they wouldn't buy Apple hardware are ppl who realize that Apple overcharges for parts that you can buy elsewhere an significantly lower prices. i wasn't trying to state that the majority of the ppl in this poll wouldn't buy Mac.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacMe - 
I read your post "well if i paid a hefty $3000-4000 premium for a system" to mean that the Mac costs $3000-4000 more than an equivalent PC, ie a price premium, since that is what we the discussion is - PC system vs Mac system both running on OS X.

I think pretty well everyone understands that Apple charges more for parts than people in the PC world. That's been publicized everywhere you look; it's sort of hard to miss. But I found in most cases the Apple Marketing guys have done a great job to maximize the profit for Apple (which is actually a good thing if you really think about it).
As an example, when I configured the Mac mini I bought I was looking at buying the 80 Gig drive separately and replacing the 40 gig drive in the Mac mini myself. But an 80 Gig drive was slightly more than the upgrade cost Apple was charging to go from 40 to 80 Gig, so I went with the 80 gig from Apple. True, if I had bought my own, I would have the 40 Gig drive that came with the machine to sell, but I also would have to 'crack' open the mini to replace the drive and reload all the software on the new drive and if something went wrong with the new drive, I couldn't just go back to Apple tech support. 
Bottom line for me was that getting the 80 Gig drive from Apple as part of the package was a better deal.
Same for the 256 vs 512 memory module on the mini; if I had gone for the 1 Gig option my decision would have been different.
But I not only count the cost of the hardware, I also look at the time I would spend doing this (which a lot of people ignore) and the downstream consequences.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

krs said:


> MacMe -
> I read your post "well if i paid a hefty $3000-4000 premium for a system" to mean that the Mac costs $3000-4000 more than an equivalent PC, ie a price premium, since that is what we the discussion is - PC system vs Mac system both running on OS X.


well hey, you made the assumption, but i never made any kind of reference in that respect!  but just as an example, someone could purchase an *entry* level Mac Mini, bump up the memory to 1gig, upgrade to a superdrive and hard drive, add wireless keyboard & mouse, and purchase a 23" ACD and you'd clear $3000 no prob! (not too long ago it would only need teh 20" ACD)  

me bringing up the topic was in *direct* reference to *MacGYVER's* comment:



MacGYVER said:


> So I guess if you have cheap parts inside the PC Intel box, I guess you really don't care what happens to it if it does break or get damaged in some way, you only have to go out and hunt down some cheap replacement parts all over again.





krs said:


> I think pretty well everyone understands that Apple charges more for parts than people in the PC world. That's been publicized everywhere you look; it's sort of hard to miss. But I found in most cases the Apple Marketing guys have done a great job to maximize the profit for Apple (which is actually a good thing if you really think about it).
> As an example, when I configured the Mac mini I bought I was looking at buying the 80 Gig drive separately and replacing the 40 gig drive in the Mac mini myself. But an 80 Gig drive was slightly more than the upgrade cost Apple was charging to go from 40 to 80 Gig, so I went with the 80 gig from Apple. True, if I had bought my own, I would have the 40 Gig drive that came with the machine to sell, but I also would have to 'crack' open the mini to replace the drive and reload all the software on the new drive and if something went wrong with the new drive, I couldn't just go back to Apple tech support.
> Bottom line for me was that getting the 80 Gig drive from Apple as part of the package was a better deal.
> Same for the 256 vs 512 memory module on the mini; if I had gone for the 1 Gig option my decision would have been different.
> But I not only count the cost of the hardware, I also look at the time I would spend doing this (which a lot of people ignore) and the downstream consequences.


sorry, but to charge almost full price for a piece of hardware and also keeping the part being replaced isn't acceptable to me. an upgrade should be priced as an upgrade, ie. a little more than the difference of the two parts individually. and the price of 1gig memory upgrade from Apple is *ridiculous*. i paid way less for my stick of 1gig of ram and recycled the 256meg into my PC.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

> sorry, but to charge almost full price for a piece of hardware and also keeping the part being replaced isn't acceptable to me. an upgrade should be priced as an upgrade, ie. a little more than the difference of the two parts individually. and the price of 1gig memory upgrade from Apple is *ridiculous*. i paid way less for my stick of 1gig of ram and recycled the 256meg into my PC.


I hear you and I wasn't happy about the pricing either, but the most I could have sold the 40 gig drive for would be around $40 and for that money it wasn't worth the hassle and time to do the upgrade myself.
I just looked up the pricing on 40 and 80 Gig drives again - either the price went up in the last three months or I made a mistake in my initial comparison, possibly using 3.5" drives rather than 2.5" drives.
The difference between a 40G and 80G is anywhere from $50 to $75 depending on the manufacturer, Apple charge $97 if I remember right. A good 2.5" 80 Gig drive is between $150 and $170.
So with those numbers the upgrade price for the drive is at least not outrageous as it was for the 1 gig memory.


----------



## green_ears (Feb 26, 2005)

MacME said:


> i think i didn't make myself clear ...


I don't see why you ask for our opinion and then try to convince everyone who has an opinion different than yours that yours is the right answer. I mean, if you are a PC worshipper in disguise, you've come to the wrong place to convert Apple converts. This is an Apple lovers site and Apple in general is based on a cult-like user base... Maybe you could just sum up all the opinions of both sides and present them equally at the end of the poll or something instead of insisting on your POV.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

hmmm...
If I could buy a brand new Ford Mustang with a Porsche engine and interior, would I do it? Hell no, what are you crazy!? But if everybody drove Porches I spose I would probably drive a Mustang just for spite (well, on second thought, no. I still wouldn't drive a Mustang).


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Dude, I was with you until the font issue - Mac OS X really blows when it comes to font handling.
> At least I can still use ATM deluxe on Windows XP...


I don't know in what environment you use fonts, but in my line of work for the last fifteen years, fonts used in Windows are a horror to the prepress guys doing work like huge flyers and catalogues. Mac still today seems to be the choice for printers.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

anal-log said:


> IF OS X could be run natively on a PC with the same reliablity (and unreliablity) hardware and softwarewise. Would you still buy a Mac


To be honest I don't know. I definitely prefer the OSX to WindowsXP and also I love using the iMac G5. Now there, PC's to my knowledge don't have anything like this work of art, and it runs great. My main worry is that Apple are the innovators of new ideas both the hardware (like the iMacs) and software which PCer's are always copying like the interfaces. I'm sure BIll Gates is always looking over Steve Job's shoulder for new ideas. It would be sad for sure if Apple stop making their wonderful and creative machines. I honestly think PC would still be back in the stone ages with DOS if it wasn't for Apple.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

green_ears said:


> I don't see why you ask for our opinion and then try to convince everyone who has an opinion different than yours that yours is the right answer. I mean, if you are a PC worshipper in disguise, you've come to the wrong place to convert Apple converts. This is an Apple lovers site and Apple in general is based on a cult-like user base... Maybe you could just sum up all the opinions of both sides and present them equally at the end of the poll or something instead of insisting on your POV.


huh? excuse me, when did i ask for ppls opinion? i'm just giving my opinion on this poll just like everyone else. are you confusing me as being the one that started this poll? cuz it wasn't me. and *i never said* my opinion is the *right* one. ppl please stop putting words in my mouth. if what i've said is unclear, i apologize for that. everyone here is entitled to their opinion, as am i. if you don't like my opinion, you're more than welcome to join in the discussion i am having with *krs*. so please don't insinuate that i'm here to "convert" you all to PCs! *please* ... i have better things to do with my time.

i own both PCs and recently a Mac. yes the Mini i purchased sits very *pretty* on my desktop, and i admire a lot of the physical designs of Apple products. however, i am neither a Mac worshipper, nor a PC worshipper. as i stated before, if given that OS X could run on a PC, i may not have made an Apple hardware purchase. and though in this poll, ppl of the same opinion are not the majority, we're not that much of a manority either! *however* having said that, in the end, *maybe* i would have still bought the Mini, since i do admire it's compact design.

anyhow, how about a show of hands here ... how many consider themselves a Apple "cult" worshopper as *green_ears* has stated? **LOL**


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacME said:


> anyhow, how about a show of hands here ... how many consider themselves a Apple "cult" worshopper as *green_ears* has stated? **LOL**


Let me jump in right here.....
I am *not* an Apple "cult" worshipper but nevertheless I prefer using a Mac to a PC with Windows by far. And I'm using each one every day so I do get a nice day-to-day comparison.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

JCCanuck said:


> I honestly think PC would still be back in the stone ages with DOS if it wasn't for Apple.


I had to laugh when I read this, but I must admit, I agree with you - you are absolutely correct in that assessment.
What I can't figure out is why Bill hasn't even been able to copy the touch and feel of the Mac interface after all these years of trying - it can't be that hard.


----------



## green_ears (Feb 26, 2005)

MacME said:


> anyhow, how about a show of hands here ... how many consider themselves a Apple "cult" worshopper as *green_ears* has stated? **LOL**


Hehehe, I almost went blind with all the *bold* in there!  

Chill man. As you stated:


MacME said:


> everyone here is entitled to their opinion


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

green_ears said:


> Hehehe, I almost went blind with all the *bold* in there!
> 
> Chill man. As you stated:


i am and was quite calm. btw, it's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to make accusations. i don't understand your comments towards me, especially since i have know idea where you were deriving your comments from. it left me a little confused, hence the rebuttal to your comments.

btw, wait till i start throwing in the *colours* with the *bold!!!*  

... then we'll all be *Kung-Fu Fighting!*


----------



## green_ears (Feb 26, 2005)

MacME said:


> btw, wait till i start throwing in the *colours* with the *bold!!!*
> 
> ... then we'll all be *Kung-Fu Fighting!*


LOL, nice! I'm getting Robot Chicken flashbacks!


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Cult Member*



MacME said:


> ...
> anyhow, how about a show of hands here ... how many consider themselves a Apple "cult" worshopper as *green_ears* has stated? **LOL**


Me! Me! Count me in! I'm a Mac Cult member/worshipper!
It's been 4 or 5 years since I escaped the evil clutches of Billy Gates and ran almost accidentally into the soft caress of Apple. I feel like I've been saved! And if you'd ever heard me raving to my friends and co-workers about Apple products, you'd definitely see the similarity between me and some religious proselytizer.
Saved from buggy, ugly UI software, and boring/bland/ugly hardware.
I would definitely keep buying Apple hardware. I'm one of those who values form as well as function. I guess it's shallowness, but I derive a huge amount of pleasure from style and good design, esthetics in general. 
Having enjoyed the quality and style of Apple products for the last few years, I would have no trouble continuing to reward Apple for having produced such fabulous, high-quality, elegant products.

Would you like to buy some flowers?


----------



## gruegoo (Dec 28, 2004)

Pelao said:


> I am not assured. The logic you use assumes too much IMHO.
> 
> The ubiquity of an OS does not alter its vulnerability levels.



I agree that ubiquity will not make it more unsecure. HOWEVER, I don't think it's as simple as that. Windows is a cultural icon that represents some very specific things. In essence, it is seen as the "OS for followers and sheep" by many of those who create viruses. Basically a lot of people hate Microsoft. 

If OSX were to become widely available, AND if it were to be used by as many people as windows is currently, it too would become a symbol for "following the flock" to many. People would begin to hate Apple. Obviously not all, but a great deal more than there are now. Obviously M$ isn't the most ethical company, but it's not like Apple is perfect. Look what they did to the konfab guys. It may not be huge, but every little mistake Apple has ever made will be put under a magnifying glass and used by others to show how evil the company is.

This would of course make OSX a target. I don't care how secure a system is, if all those pc hackers and virus-makers suddenly turned their attention to OSX, there would be an increase in the spyware, malware, viruses available for the OS. Its not that OSX would become less secure, its just that every tiny flaw in it would be exploited to the highest possible degree, which currently isn't the case.


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

I certainly wouldnt. I just built a crazy PC for what I think is a great price and its rock solid and blisteringly fast and using great parts... (brief description is a dual 3Ghz xeon with 2gig ram and scsi drives, X800XT)

Tower case - Chenbro server case - $229
http://www.chenbro.com.tw/product/product_preview.php?pid=102

Antec 550W 24pin server supply - $139
http://www.antec.com/us/productDetails.php?ProdID=20551

CPU(s) - 2x Intel 3Ghz Xeon, 1mb L2 cache, 800Mhz FSB - $738

Mainboard - ASUS NCCH-DL - $289
http://usa.asus.com/products/server/srv-mb/ncch-dl/overview.htm#

RAM - 4 pieces PQI brand DDR 400 512mb , CAS 2.5 - $220 

Video - ASUS X800XT AGP - $739
http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=AX800 XT/TVD&langs=09

SCSI controller - Adaptec 39160 dual ultra160 OEM - $200

Drives - 3x Fujitsu 15,000RPM 36gig SCSI drives - $555

Optical drive - Pioneer 16X Dvd burner,dual layer - $89

Sound card - M-Audio 2496 - $169



So the whole box came to $3367 Canadian for an extremely fast dual cpu box with 2gig ram, very fast video card, very fast drives and controller, great sound card, an attractive yet very flexible server case which can hold 8 drives yet run nearly silent. I realize this is over the top but if you subtract the SCSI and the insane video card, it pretty much knocks $1500 off the price so we're at $1850 or os + $100 for an SATA drive and $200 for an OK video card...so $2150 for a 2gig ram, dual 3Ghz xeon box thats still an a kick ass silent server case  

Now all I need is to be able to run OSX on there.. I did play with PearPC by the way and its SLOOOOOW. I'd guess its running like a 50Mhz G3 but with a very fast HD


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Motherboards for Apple are from Foxconn (the same people who make Dell motherboards) ..."

Like, that means something. How about:
The BMW M5's interior (dash, panels, carpet, seats and upholstery) is made by Magna International, the same people who make the Pontiac Firefly interior. Just as true, just as meaningless.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

gordguide said:


> " ... Motherboards for Apple are from Foxconn (the same people who make Dell motherboards) ..."
> 
> Like, that means something. How about:
> The BMW M5's interior (dash, panels, carpet, seats and upholstery) is made by Magna International, the same people who make the Pontiac Firefly interior. Just as true, just as meaningless.


Agreed Again GordGuide, It's as if they feel there are no design differences. No two motherboards for different applications are the same or built to the same standards. A motherboard is nothing more than a PCB (Printed Circuit Board) I bet the iPod PCB comes from the same place. Try running an iMac on that! Good god people!
And, no I would not run OS X on a PC, defeats the experience IMHO!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

gordguide said:


> " ... Motherboards for Apple are from Foxconn (the same people who make Dell motherboards) ..."
> 
> Like, that means something. How about:
> The BMW M5's interior (dash, panels, carpet, seats and upholstery) is made by Magna International, the same people who make the Pontiac Firefly interior. Just as true, just as meaningless.


Wow GordGuide - a little testy aren't we? If you read the beginning of the thread, I was commenting on the reliability of Apple computer parts versus PC parts.

If Apple uses a Pioneer OEM DVD burner there is no difference in quality with that same PC DVD burner that is available at computer stores. 
The same applies to any hard drive that Apple uses - they are common parts available to consumers on the PC side.

iPetie: It's true that all motherboards are not the same. In terms of quality, there is nothing spectacular about Apple motherboards. They are manufactured by an OEM known for being cost-effective. I'm sure they are as reliable as a Dell or many PC motherboards. 



gordguide said:


> For what I do, there's no cost savings with Intel hardware vs Apple hardware. Trust me, I've built comparable systems on both.


How about giving us a real world example?
More importanly (to me at least), can you upgrade the PSU on your G4?
How many harddrive can you get into a G5 without buying a third party solution?


----------

