Mac Mini Price Significantly Less than DIY PC

OSViews ^ | Posted Jan 14, 2005 - 01:08 PM | Harry Rider

[Swordmaker]

The Mac mini has received rave reviews from some of Apple's harshest critics for its low price. However, some of them are still implying that a comparably equipped PC can be had for slightly less. Harry Rider submitted the following editorial to osOpinion / osViews which continues his series on comparing Macs to equally-equipped DIY PCs. This time his comparison deal's with Apple's new Mac mini.

--

Sometime last year, I wrote an editorial comparing the price of Apple's new iMac G5 with a comparably equipped PC to see which of the two was less expensive. Apple has a reputation for selling "premium-priced" hardware and I've found that not to be true as Apple's prices are in fact less expensive. To the surprise of many, the iMac turned out to be nearly $250 less than an equally equipped DIY PC.

Apple's incorrect premium-priced reputation was best summarized by osViews's editor's prelude to my editorial: "The reason for [the false reputation] stems from the fact that Apple doesn't allow you to build your own computer from commodity parts. But that doesn't make PCs less expensive... though it does make the Mac less configurable."

Apple sells a limited number of computer configurations. As a result, the company has managed to secure larger margins than average... though not because their computers require you to pay more, but because they require you to buy more. In essence, they didn't offer a low-end machine thus allowing you to buy less and get less as you can with the large assortment of PC suppliers as well as the opportunity to build your own.

With Apple's introduction of the Mac mini early this week, the company has finally started competing in the low-end computer market. This caused me to ask the same question as I did before... "How does Apple's latest computer stack up against a comparably equipped PC?"

Same as before, I started by building a PC at Dell's web site to match the specs listed on Apple's Mac mini. The problem with this strategy is that Dell doesn't offer an equivalent system. You can buy a config with less and pay less, or you can buy one with more and pay more. So to make the comparison fair, it had to be made against a DIY PC.

So how does Apple's new computer stack up??

Here are the specs of the lower-end Mac mini:

1.25GHz PowerPC G4
256MB of PC2700 (333MHz) DDR SRAM
ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB of DDR SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA
Slot-loading Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
One FireWire 400 port; two USB 2.0 ports; DVI output; VGA output (adapter included)
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
Mac OS X version 10.3 “Panther
iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand), AppleWorks, Quicken 2005 for Mac, Nanosaur 2, Marble Blast Gold

Price: $499

--

Here are the specs of a comparably equipped DIY PC

Intel Pentium 4 2Ghz CPU................$145
P4S800 (SiS 648FX) Series P4 Motherboard................$63
256MB of PC2700 (333MHz) DDR SRAM................$51
ATI Radeon 9200................$90
40GB Ultra ATA................$56
DVD-ROM/CD-RW................$60
Case/PSU................$40
Windows XP Professional................$199
Adobe Photoshop album (Compares with iPhoto)................$50
Windows Movie Maker (Compares to iMovie)................$0
Ulead DVD MovieFactory (Compares with iDVD)................$40
Fruity Loops (Compares with Garage Band)................$80
Microsoft Works (Compares with Apple Works................$50
Quicken 2004................$60
Nanosaur 2................$15
Marble Blast Gold................$15

Hardware Price: $505
Hardware and Software price: $1,022

In my last editorial comparing the iMac and a DIY PC, I read reviews of my article from other sources redoing my comparison but leaving out software and then bringing down the cost of the PC as a result. This seems to be a common practice amongst PC hardware review sites and I think it's a mistake. Software is an area where Apple ads value to their hardware. I think their mistake can be attributed to the fact that most bundled software on PCs is shareware or junkware, so factoring in equivalents to Apple's iLife is so easily overlooked.

Regardless, to appease those that only look at hardware, I ran the figures both ways. The Apple hardware comes out less in both scenarios. The price comparison reiterates that Apple doesn't charge the supposed "premium" that is often equated with their systems. Can we finally do away with the fallacy that implies that Apple charges a premium for their computers?

[antiRepublicrat]

Better Computer from Dell with laptop, mouse, and keyboard for $399.

Have you seen what a piece of junk that PC is? The video is the bare minimum for a functioning home PC -- forget any GUI gee-whiz stuff and games more demanding than Solitaire, and I hope you don't use it for playing DVDs with any quality (whoops, it doesn't come with a DVD player).

Unlike that Dell, this DIY example is comparable to the Mini.

Oh wow, Apple gives me a photo album program! (I got one with my last Dell and promptly removed it.)

That's because Dell's photo album program is junkware. Apple's is actually good.

[antiRepublicrat]

Unnecessary, they could just use XP Home.

They're trying to be equivalent, but Apple doesn't make anything as low-end as XP Home.

[antiRepublicrat]

I can get an Athlon 1 GHz CPU and the motherboard for $100, and it'll be significantly faster than the Mac.

Since the latest G4 is far more efficient per-clock than an Athlon of 1GHz heritage, the 1.25 GHz Mini would be way faster than your setup. Get something more comparable.

Although I will put in that the reviewer could have easily saved $60 by going with an AMD chip/mobo.

[antiRepublicrat]

Please post a link so I can look over the 399$ dell and see how it stacks up against the mini..

Rock-bottom video, only CD-ROM (not even a CD/RW or DVD), XP Home, little software, big clunky case, no IEEE 1394 (Firewire)...

[pageonetoo]

Like myself I think the main reason most people don't use Macs is that they don't want to be associated with the lefty, artsy image that Macs have...

Free thinker, huh? As a Mac user for over 20 years, I am a righty, the only art I enjoy is on cigar boxes, and I could care less what others think of me. I have enjoyed the use of my Macs, without the expense, interference, or assistance from any tech support department, other than the Mac website, and my, now 15 yr old, daughter...

I was a field service PC network tech for Unisys for seven years. I RARELY ever encountered a Mac in the Hundreds of businesses I visited

Of course you didn't encounter them...your time was spent fixing the crap. Meanwhile, the Mac users were grinning at their accomplishments!

Formidable power...The 70 MB per frame of film requires an enormous amount of storage, and fortunately there is an impressive 400 terabytes sitting just down the corridor. Computers at Lowry Digital Images Massive computing power brings the picture back to the original quality The processing power is quite formidable too. The brains of the facility are 600 Apple G5s, each a dual processor 2GHz machine. Mike Inchalik says: "The Apple G5s were chosen because it's an extraordinary floating point processing machine, and with 1,200 such processors there's a really immense amount of processing capability here.

[Bush2000]

Alas, since many DIYers pirate most of the software that you see there, their actual cost will be significantly less...

[antiRepublicrat]

I don't uderstand why the lefties at our schools are allowed to invest all that money and teach the kids on Macs when 90+ percent of the world uses PC's.

Could be the lower Mac TCO, saving the kids' tuition money. After that, they've already learned how various applications work (Photoshop is Photoshop, Excel is Excel, C++ is C++, Java is Java, etc.), so almost everything is transferrable to Windows. I admit that it's being a bit protective, as the kids won't experience the frustrations of the Windows platform until after they get out, but at least their school years will have gone smoothly.

[antiRepublicrat]

Alas, since many DIYers pirate most of the software that you see there, their actual cost will be significantly less...

Very good point. But it is like arguing about the price of music at the various stores, while one guy in the corner is just downloading his for free.

[general_re]

C'mon, gimme a break - "efficiency" is meaningless in computers, what matters is raw speed, and an Athlon at 1 or 1.2 GHz is easily a match for that G4 performance-wise. And putting a 2.0 GHz P4 in there is just a joke - it'll smoke that Mac like a cheap cigar. Apples to apples, indeed.

[Poser]

I, for one, am sick of these "Macs are as cheap as PCs" threads.

My $300 Dell is a good comparison. Let's try it.
Dell Demension 2400 with

• 2.8 Gig processor
• 256 MB RAM
• 80 Gig hard drive
• 52x CD ROM
• Intel 82845G Graphics Controller
• Keyboard
• Mouse
• Speakers
• 6 USB 2.0 ports 2 on front)
• Serial Port
• Parallel Port
• Sound card
• Built-in 10/100 Ethernet
• Word Perfect Office Suite
• Paintshop Pro 8.0
• A bunch of other worthless software (just like the Mini)

Here are the specs of the lower-end Mac mini:

• 1.25GHz PowerPC G4
• 256MB of PC2700 (333MHz) DDR SRAM
• ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB of DDR SDRAM
• 40GB Ultra ATA
• Slot-loading Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
• One FireWire 400 port; two USB 2.0 ports; DVI output; VGA output (adapter included)
• Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
• Mac OS X version 10.3 “Panther
• iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand), AppleWorks, Quicken 2005 for Mac, Nanosaur 2, Marble Blast Gold
• Price: $499

So... Basically, with the addition of a DVD-ROM/CD-RW ($45 from PC Connection) I have a computer with double the processor and double the hard drive (plus a keyboard, speakers and mouse) of the Mini. I added RAM up to 1 Gig, a firewire port and a CD/RW plus my old monitor. For under $500 I have an expandable machine that is a whole lot more computer than the Mini, including software.

I understand that I got a good deal on the Dell, but those types of deals are available all the time. I bought a Mini. It took 8 weeks to show up, but I'll pick it up Monday. This is the cheapest Mac ever and the price got me to buy one (just for fun). There is still no comparison in price and features. Apple costs more than the PC, usually by a factor of about 50%. All of the posts in the world about the Mini won't change that.

WalMart is selling a full-size PC with 128MB RAM and a CD for $199. It is a Xandros/Linux machine with Open Office and a host of other open source stuff. It includes a mouse, speakers and keyboard. For under $125 you can bring it up to the same specs as the Mini.

Good computers are cheap, including the Mini. A few years ago, I had resigned myself to paying $1,500 for a decent computer. Things changed fast.

[balrog666]

When 90% of buyers are just replacing an older machine, they don't need any stinkin' (promo) software at all.

[Swordmaker]

Unnecessary, they could just use XP Home. A recently downloaded copy of linux might work even better for really hardcore DIYers (cheaper still).

The exercise was to duplicate the two machines as near as possible... OSX is much more akin to XP Professional (and that is complimenting XP Pro) than XP Home.

[Swordmaker]

Kids games, way to show your bias author.

Again, duplicating the Mac Mini suite of software... those games come included with the computer.

[Swordmaker]

Alas, since many DIYers pirate most of the software that you see there, their actual cost will be significantly less...

Unfortunately, Bush, you are absolutely right...

[antiRepublicrat]

C'mon, gimme a break - "efficiency" is meaningless in computers, what matters is raw speed

Which I suppose is the reason that Intel is abandoning its "clock is everything" approach since AMD is whooping their butts at much lower clock speeds. No, clock speed is a small part of the total performance picture. The G4 gets more work done per cycle than an Athlon XP or Intel. The G5 gets far more work done per clock cycle than an Intel. The Opteron, however, gets a a bit more work done per cycle than a G5.

[antiRepublicrat]

Close, but the processor isn't twice as powerful, and don't forget to buy a Radeon for it, since the included graphics are practically useles.

But a lot of this is "if you care." If you don't need even decent video, score one for the Dell. If you want some useful software or Firewire, or something better than XP Home, score one for the Mac.

I wouldn't suggest XP Home if more than one person is going to use the computer (such as your kids or wife) due to a lack of file-level permissions, group policy or encrypted file system.

[Poser]

Close, but the processor isn't twice as powerful, and don't forget to buy a Radeon for it, since the included graphics are practically useles.

I've had no problems with the graphics yet. I don't watch DVDs on the computer, but video works fine and Hitman II: Silent Assassin works fine.

But a lot of this is "if you care." If you don't need even decent video, score one for the Dell. If you want some useful software or Firewire, or something better than XP Home, score one for the Mac.

The video works great. I bought a firewire card to run my Ipod. I have no other use for it. I suppose I could have bought a USB cable for the Ipod, but I think the firewire card was cheaper.

I wouldn't suggest XP Home if more than one person is going to use the computer (such as your kids or wife) due to a lack of file-level permissions, group policy or encrypted file system.

It came with XP Pro. Go figure. I've been amazed at how good it was for the price. I found the discounts while watching the Screen Savers when Leo Laporte was still there.

In any case, I'll be playing with the Mini on Tuesday. That should be fun.

[general_re]

The G4 gets more work done per cycle than an Athlon XP or Intel.

Let's take off the Jobs-tinted glasses for a moment - even if that were true, who cares? That still doesn't translate into better performance, which the Athlon gives you at a lower price than what was spec'ed out up above.

The G5 gets far more work done per clock cycle than an Intel.

No way, not in your wildest dreams. At best, a single G5 is clock-for-clock running even with a P4. Why do you think it takes a dual G5 to give any kind of credible results against single CPU Athlon/Intel machines? Why didn't Apple release a single CPU G5 as the top of the line, back when they introduced the things? Couldn't they have relied on that wonderful "efficiency" to make up the clockspeed difference.

Please.

[mbennett203]

"OSX is much more akin to XP Professional (and that is complimenting XP Pro) than XP Home."

What's so advanced about XP Pro vs. Home? Don't they use the same kernel source?

I've heard it's "better for networking." Whatever that means.

[antiRepublicrat]

That still doesn't translate into better performance

If frequency equals performance, tell me why an Opteron at a lower frequency will wipe the floor with a Xeon, especially in multiprocessor environments? Why will Intel's own Itanium beat their best Xeon, although the Itanium only goes up to 1.6 GHz? Simple, several years ago, Intel came out with the P4 architecture, and threw away everything in favor of pure clock speed. The latest PIII chips actually had more performance than the first P4s at a few hundred MHz more. This was an excellent marketing decision, given the millions of gullible people like you who believe clock speed is everything.

Meanwhile, the Motorola/IBM and AMD were working to make their chips do far more work per clock cycle. Intel's idea was good in the short run, until they started running into the physics of high clock speed. Meanwhile, the others were getting the same or better formance with a lower clock, and have room to grow.

Why didn't Apple release a single CPU G5 as the top of the line

The PPC970 was born a multiprocessor chip. It's really a shame to have only one in a system with its high efficiency in a multiprocessor environment.