Posted on 11/17/2009 10:10:27 PM PST by Swordmaker
Nope. Just did exactly what you specced. Mine came to $997.00. I just started with the $799 version at the outset.
An entry level, decent performance Mac Mini, really is only $599.
Even that Mac Mini has a 1066MHz front side bus, and DDR3 1066MHz RAM... far faster RAM than your Dell 537s' 800MHz FSB and DDR2 RAM.
That entry level Mac Mini has 3MB of Level 2 Cache, compared to your Dell 537s 2MB of Level 2 cache, which is slower and less capable.
Your claim that the Dell is faster than the Mac—based on a slightly faster clock—is probably questionable. Performance wise, I think the Mac could clean the Dell's clock. Even if you upgraded the processor on the Dell to the offered 3.0GHz 6MB Level 2 Cache, 1066 FSB Core 2 Duo for considerably more money (taking your Dell to $767), you are still stuck with an 800 MHz FSB on the motherboard and 800 MHz DDR2 RAM which would add several wait states to any tasks.
You don't see many benchmarks for real world multitasking... I can tell you that my experience is seeing a Windows PC start to bog down just running two or three apps... my Mac is now running twelve easily. Many OS X Mac users are running Mac, Windows, and Linux apps at the same time in separate windows with no problems.
So explain why I would pay more for the hardware, and buy an operating system that I wouldn't use. Does that make sense? If everything I run already runs on Windows (or, in most cases, ONLY runs on Windows), and I can buy more powerful hardware for lower cost, what's the benefit?
Other than being an ultra-hipster Mac guy, of course...
Lattice JUST RELEASED, if you notice the date. Of course, the dominant platform in the market, Xilinx, isn’t supported on the Mac...
And what about integrated schematic capture and PCB layout?
Or parametric 3D CAD?
See, there are actually applications and entire industries that don’t run on the Mac platform. And thus, for those people, a Mac is a BAD CHOICE. Can you accept that?
Can you accept that a Mac can run Windows software just as easily as any PC?
I see, so their pricing is not consistent. Good to know... So it's only 40% more...
Even that Mac Mini has a 1066MHz front side bus, and DDR3 1066MHz RAM... far faster RAM than your Dell 537s' 800MHz FSB and DDR2 RAM.
For $110 (still leaving you considerably under the price of the Mac Mini) I can upgrade the Dell to a 1066 MHz FSB, 2.93 GHz processor, and 3 MB L2 cache.
That entry level Mac Mini has 3MB of Level 2 Cache, compared to your Dell 537s 2MB of Level 2 cache, which is slower and less capable.
See above. For $110 you completely eliminate this point. And end up with a 15% higher clock speed as well. Hmmm...
Your claim that the Dell is faster than the Mac—based on a slightly faster clock—is probably questionable.
Eleven percent isn't slightly faster... If it was, why offer the slightly faster 2.53 GHz processor as an option to the stock 2.2 GHz unit on the Mac Mini?
Even if you upgraded the processor on the Dell to the offered 3.0GHz 6MB Level 2 Cache, 1066 FSB Core 2 Duo for considerably more money (taking your Dell to $767), you are still stuck with an 800 MHz FSB on the motherboard and 800 MHz DDR2 RAM which would add several wait states to any tasks.
Let's say your correct, and you end up with the 3 GHz Dell at about the same speed as the 2.5 GHz Mac. You're still $230 cheaper. Meaning - as the original poster contended, and as your own research shows - the PC hardware is cheaper than the Mac hardware.
It's OK to admit that the Mac is a more costly platform; it's good hardware, but it's pricey. It looks nice, but you pay for that. If that's what you want, so be it. But to deny that an equivalent PC is equal or more expensive is simply misleading, disingenuous.
Oh, and I've been to the Foxconn factory (down in Shenzhen), seen Macs roll off one line, and Dells off another. The manufacturing costs are the same - it's the same factory. They use, for the most part, the same vendors for their components. They get the same kinds of discounts. The difference really is in the pricing structure of the two companies. And Apple has been for a LONG time a premium priced product. You pay for the logo, you pay for the style. You pay for the "experience". You pay - extra.
Of course I noticed the date... that's why I prefaced it the way I did.
And it isn't just suddenly supporting UNIX... it's a continuation of UNIX support.
Xilinx and parametric 3D CAD are both supported on UNIX™. Macs are certified UNIX™. Ergo, if they will run on UNIX™, they are certified to run on OS X Macs. Perhaps there are things YOU don't know?
And what about integrated schematic capture and PCB layout?
Both exist for Mac and UNIX. A lot of high end work is done in UNIX and LINUX and both run quite nicely on Macs.
ABSOLUTELY! And I've never denied it! I'm just curious of why you think it would be better to buy a Mac, then have to buy a full copy of Windows (another $200) to be able to run what I could do on a cheaper, equivalent processing power computer to start with.
It's like buying a flat bed tow truck to carry your car around, because having a tow truck is cool. Heck, why not just drive the car?
So, if 90% of my work is Windows-platform ONLY, and the other 10% is fully available on Windows (Microsoft Office - both platforms), why buy a Mac?
Can you show me where on the Xilinx page it says it's supported on all UNIX platforms, or Mac OSX? Please? Because I don't see general UNIX or OSX supported. I guess if you want to deal with support issues, that's your own call.
And which 3D parametric CAD? Pro/E (Wildfire) doesn't. Alibre doesn't. Solidworks doesn't. AutoCAD doesn't. There's about 90% of the market, meaning that if you don't support those, then as a free-lance/contractor you're out of luck with clients.
Look, the dominant - and by dominant, I mean 90% or more - of the design tools out there that are used by most companies are Windows platform based. VERY few are big UNIX programs anymore; even Boeing has moved to CATIA on Windows. In some fields - particularly engineering design - Windows is the only realistic platform option.
But your memory is still only 800MHz DDR2 compared to 1066 DDR3. That's a big difference. Old tech/new tech. Keep dancing.
Eleven percent isn't slightly faster... If it was, why offer the slightly faster 2.53 GHz processor as an option to the stock 2.2 GHz unit on the Mac Mini?
A faster processor with a slower bus and slower RAM is going to be a slower system... you can't fill a bigger bucket with a smaller hose faster than you can fill a slightly smaller bucket with a bigger hose. The Mac Mini has a "hose" matched to its "bucket." Your PC doesn't.
It looks nice, but you pay for that.
And you pay for machined, structural aluminum... but more costly is small form factor. Your small Dell is 1,063 cubic inches in size while the Mac Mini is only 85 cubic inches! That kind of size engineering and manufacturing really costs money.
If you want to check that out, configure one of Dell's new Zino HDs at 207 cubic inches... I just did and wound up with a similar form factor with a much less powerful plastic computer at a price competitive with the much more feature complete $599 Mac Mini.
But to deny that an equivalent PC is equal or more expensive is simply misleading, disingenuous.
I don't think I've ever denied that... ;^)>
Other things that cost is getting the energy usage down. The Mac Mini draws only 110 Watts. Your PC draws 250 Watts... and you have to endure the fan noise that goes along with disposing of the waste heat produced by that much wattage. The Mac Mini is totally silent.
Value on the Mac Mini also includes the suite of integrated software that is included with the OS... something lacking on the Dell. Also lacking on the PC is gigabit ethernet, Bluetooth, Firewire 400 or 800, and optical sound in/out.
You pay for the "experience".
Quite frankly, the Mac experience is worth it. Windows' experience is a tough task master. Most of us have endured it (and still do daily... although Windows7 is getting better) and will not go back.
When somebody starts telling me that their OS magically makes applications run without using any CPU I know it's time to look somewhere else for information.
Lol!
The only external hardware I mentioned was the modem. No operating system has built-in support for every piece of hardware out there. Trying to compare Windows to Linux is like comparing apples to oranges. My overall experience with Linux has been pretty good. I was seriously trying to help you with practical advice. If you think it's all a joke, then fine.
That's not what I said. What I said was that OS X does a better job of multitasking than does Windows... in other words, it does a better job of sharing the resources and dividing the attention of the CPU and memory without slowing the system. No magic about it. It will be getting even better with Snow Leopard's Grand Central Dispatch, which is designed to better take advantage of multiple core CPUs.
When I can have a dozen to 20 applications running simultaneously without apparent impact on response time on an OS X system but a Windows system starts to bog down with only three similar apps running, then the OS X system is observably better at multitasking... which makes it and me more productive.
You also said that no matter how many apps you load on it, running or not, it won't be noticably slower.
When you start making claims like that, I start hae doubts about your objectivity.
Which claims? That my productivity is improved? That I can run 12 to 20 applications simultaneously on an OS X Mac? That a Windows machine can start to significantly bog down with two or three?
Currently, I am posting this reply from a client's older OS X Mac Pro that doubles as his office server. It has four cores (2 x 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeons) and runs with 9GBs of 667 MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM RAM. There are four users currently logged on to this single computer and seven workstations connected to the database it is serving. All told, between the seven workstations, and the four users, I estimate there are about 40 active applications running with probably about 15 idling but all currently present in RAM... 12 on this user space alone. According to Activity Monitor, it is currently processing 140 processes with 559 threads. Included in those processes are four instances of Folding @ home that uses idle CPU time on the cores... No slowdown. UNIX is a strong, efficient OS.
None of the workers at the workstations can even tell that I am doing CPU intensive work on the server at all. One of the user spaces on this machine is accessing and printing the monthly statements... about 2000 individual print jobs... as I am posting. I don't notice it.
The server portion has sent 12.61 GBs of data and received 10.42 GBs of data since the database was started this morning... so it's been very busy.
Oh, incidentally, there is a OS X window with Parallels running WindowsXP Prefessional providing access to a Windows only database application that provides the workstations with data about patient insurance coverages...
You don't claim that it can bog down, but that it will. I have no patience for creativity when it comes to benchmarks and performance comparisons.
That's quite an exaggeration of what I said. Here is the exact quotation of what I said...but I am going to make it more accurate:
"If you've got sufficient RAM, pretty much true. You can slow one down if a lot of them are concurrently processing but just becauseanappsisare loaded, ready and are resident in memory does not cause slowdowns. OS X Macs multitask better than Windows machines do. The Mac I am posting this on has ten major apps running right now, with several processing, with no appreciable or noticeable slowdown. When I am in a major production mode, it is not unusual for me to have more than 20 going at once on several different virtual screens."
Ask yourself why does a Windows machine often run faster once the Registry has been cleaned up, regardless of what applications have been loaded into RAM to run? A Mac does not have a registry and doesn't need one.
Look at the context. Starting with an article about consumer model notebooks being slowed down by extra software being added by the maufacturer, you submit that Macs don’t suffer from this, and offer as proof the fact that you’re working from a Mac right now running 20 apps and don’t notice any performance degredation....a server class machine with 9 gigs of ram.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.