I don’t have that kind of money. That’s why I look for performance per dollar spent. I would no sooner buy that Z600 than I would a Mac.
Performance/dollar ratio. Am I clear?
I say that if I had that kind of money in a rhetorical sense. I could put together a whole lot more computer than that Z600 or a Mac for less money.
But I’m not going to ever spend that kind of money on a computer. Am I clear?
Macs are simply overpriced. That HP z600 is too. I wouldn’t buy either. Is that clear?
Match the component with the exact same components, one for one, and you will find that you cannot. Even ignoring labor imputs, you will soon find that you have overspent your budget and still have equivalent component items left to purchase. This has been attempted numerous times, buying equivalent grade parts through Egghead, or other discounters on the internet.
Ars Technica attempted to build a computer equivalent to an $2499 entry level Mac Pro (one with dual Xeon Core 2 Duo processors), purchasing the lowest priced equivalent component they could find on the Internet, and had exceeded the retail price of the Mac Pro before they had purchased a powersupply, case, and OS.
This is the workstation market. Both are well-priced. The processors alone in that $3,299 Mac will run you about $2,000. The mobo is another $400, the PSU another $250, the memory almost $200. A decent case and cooling will run another $200, then you need hard drive, video, sound, Firewire, DVD drive, Bluetooth, an operating system, etc. By going piecemeal you've probably already spent more than if you'd just bought the system from an OEM, and you still have no support.
I wouldn’t buy either. Is that clear?
What is clear is that you think something is over priced when it is in fact a good value, just not in your price range.