[vulpine]

mdawson said:

vulpine, you are (somewhat) disagreeing with me on three points then basically reiterate them. :)

In the end, you have paraphrased my original points and brought a few other issues with the clone era to the table. I really had no intention of addressing everything that was wrong with Amelio’s Apple at 1:00 am. :) The bottom line is that, as we both agree, the clone program of the 1990s is proof positive that allowing OS X to run on anyone’s hardware is an extremely bad idea. As the old saying goes, I do not have to place my hand on a working stove to know its hot, and Apple has already been burned once.

I regret to say you are absolutely right. It just goes to prove that I shouldn't read controversial issues at 4AM after a long day. For that, I apologize. I guess it was my perception of the lack of points that you chose to leave out that inspired me to want to correct and include them.

I have been an Apple user from almost the beginning, with the original Apple II. When the 'clone wars' began, I specifically contacted Apple with a request for information on how I could build my own and they provided me with a spec sheet that, among other things, required me to submit my design for a motherboard to Apple for approval before they could give me a license to build. It seems that management misunderstood my request to build one for myself and thought I intended to become just another clone maker. However, I also noted that even then they specified a very narrow range of hardware components and emphasized that they would not support any hardware not on the list. So even then Apple understood that if the OS was to remain reliable, the hardware, too, had to be reliable.

[mdawson]

> vulpine wrote:
>
> It just goes to prove that I shouldn't read controversial issues at 4AM after a long day.
Been there, done that. I have been burned by responding to posts either too late at night when I am tired or too early after having just woken up. The result is all too often misinterpretation of or missing points inferred in the post to which I am responding or worse, quickly composing something that comes across in the wrong way as there is no (facial) expression or body language for people to pick up on in online forums.

[robgb]

As someone who has built a number of PCs in my time, I can assure you that Macs are much more expensive than the equivalent PC. I just finished building a Core 2 Duo PC with four gigs of memory for under $500, using parts that are equivalent to or better than what you'd find in a Mac Pro. You can't purchase a Mac Pro for under a thousand, and the equivalent Mac would probably be closer to two grand.
I own both Macs and PCs and love them all. The OSX system offers me things that Windows and Linux don't. And it would be nice to be able to put any of those operating systems on any machine I choose. I can do that with Windows. I can do that with Linux. So why should Apple be allowed to be any different. Legal experts say their EULA is flawed and possible illegal.


Psystar is merely trying to make a living building Mac clones. If anything, it seems to me that this would HELP Apple, allowing those who can't afford the average Mac to try out the operating system on something less expensive. And don't start talking to me about the Mac Mini, because as cute as it may be, it doesn't have near the power and flexibility of an equivalent costing PC.



Chances are pretty good that once a customer tries a Mac clone, he'll want the real thing -- because, let's face it, they're awfully pretty.



And that's what Apple has going for it and always has. Their design. The iPod certainly wasn't the first mp3 player out there and far from the best, but everyone wants one because they look so damn cool.



So I don't really understand Apple's refusal to allow their operating system to be used just like any other operating system. Just as the mp3 market seems to be all theirs, the Mac market will remain theirs as well.

And yes, I did join this forum just to make this comment. I'm neither a Mac or PC fanboy and I don't work for Psystar or any other Mac cloning company. I would simply like to use the software I pay for in any way I see fit.
Message was edited by: robgb

[mdawson]

Quote

robgb wrote:

>

Quote

As someone who has built a number of PCs in my time, I can assure you that Macs are much more expensive than the equivalent PC. I just finished building a Core 2 Duo PC with four gigs of memory for under $500, using parts that are equivalent to or better than what you'd find in a Mac Pro. You can't purchase a Mac Pro for under a thousand, and the equivalent Mac would probably be closer to two grand.

And every reliable source on the matter completely contrasts that assessment and like every one else that posts this untruth, you demonstrate that you either have no real understanding of technology and business models or you choose to intentionally spread FUD. A home-built PC with a Core 2 Duo of unspecified specifications, a typical FUD tactic, is not even in the same class as the Mac Pro that uses the server-class an Intel Xeon. Secondly, I seriously doubt that your system has a 1066 MHz system bus or fully-buffered error correcting RAM and it definitely does not have a custom-built motherboard or (aluminum) chassis all of which factor into the selling price.

Dell is well-known for their bargain basement pricing at every PC market tier, yet as a mass producer of PCs, not even Dell can offer a system equivalent to any given Mac Pro without it costing upwards of twice as much if not more. Now we are supposed to believe that you as an individual magically defied the underlying principles of basic economics and built a PC that bests a Mac Pro for substantially less than 25 percent of a Mac Pro?s cost.

Please shovel your BS elsewhere. It has long since been established that Macs do not cost more than Wintel PCs that are truly their equal and that in fact Macs typically cost less when everything is factored in. Even the PC press has been forced to admit that fact over the past several years so please spare us the pretense.

Quote

robgb wrote:

>

Quote

I own both Macs and PCs and love them all. The OSX system offers me things that Windows and Linux don't. And it would be nice to be able to put any of those operating systems on any machine I choose. I can do that with Windows. I can do that with Linux. So why should Apple be allowed to be any different.

Because unlike the companies that sell Windows and the various Linux distros, Apple is not a software company and this matter has been covered to death by people in this thread and elsewhere that actually understand the concept of a business model. So keep reading the following until it sinks in, as people like you seem to conveniently choose to ignore this fact regardless of how many times it is brought up:
bq. Apple already tried to alter their business model by licensing the Mac OS in the mid-1990s when it sanctioned Mac clones. It nearly killed Apple when only six companies were involved and it will kill Apple with every PC OEM on the planet picking off Apple?s plate. Supporting one?s competitor in business is irresponsible, myopic and the height of stupidity. Supporting one?s competitor in business is irresponsible, myopic and the height of stupidity. Supporting one?s competitor in business is irresponsible, myopic and the height of stupidity. Supporting one?s competitor in business is irresponsible, myopic and the height of stupidity. Supporting one?s competitor in business is irresponsible, myopic and the height of stupidity. Supporting one?s competitor in business is irresponsible, myopic and the height of stupidity. Supporting one?s competitor in business is irresponsible, myopic and the height of stupidity.

Quote

robgb wrote:

>
Legal experts say their EULA is flawed and possible illegal.

No, lawyers under the employ of an opportunist company are BSing their way through the legal system to undermine Apple?s business for their own gains. Attorney?s under the employ of organized criminals say that their clients are clients are innocent, that does not make it true.

robgb wrote:
>
Psystar is merely trying to make a living building Mac clones.

The Psystar needs to be put out of business because no business is entitled to sell another company?s brand without their explicit consent. The Macintosh brand, computers that run the Mac OS, is wholly owned by Apple, period. Psystar has no more a right to sell the Mac brand, whether they call it that or not, than General Mills has to market Pop Tarts.

robgb wrote:
>
And don't start talking to me about the Mac Mini, because as cute as it may be, it doesn't have near the power and flexibility of an equivalent costing PC.

And once again let us bring up the Mac mini, because of course Apple intended for that system to be a replacement for a tower. Like all trolls, your reference to the Mac mini simply shows that you are reaching for straws to make your already baseless case.

robgb wrote:
>
Chances are pretty good that once a customer tries a Mac clone, he'll want the real thing -- because, let's face it, they're awfully pretty.

So if a person buys a Scion for $13,000 and enjoys the quality and reliability for which the Toyota brands are known they are going purchase a $50,000 Lexus when they are ready for their next car? Are frelling you kidding me? If someone buys something in lieu of a more expensive product, they are never going to buy that more expensive product because they have a good experience with a (perceived) similar, but less expensive item unless their income level increases dramatically. How many average Joes or Janes do you know that have had their income level suddenly improve significantly, let alone substantially, at any time let alone in this economy. And, at least in that car analogy the buyer is still getting a (reliable) Toyota product whether they purchase a Lexus on the high end or a Scion on the low end.

robgb wrote:
>
And that's what Apple has going for it and always has. Their design. The iPod certainly wasn't the first mp3 player out there and far from the best, but everyone wants one because they look so damn cool.

Apple products are not popular just because of their looks. Otherwise the market share for Macs and Wintel PCs would be tilted in the opposite direction by now. It has only been in the past 10 years that Macs across the board have had strikingly different and aesthetically pleasing designs. Aesthetics may attract some people, but it is the reliability and robustness due to the tight hardware/OS integration that keeps people. As to the iPod, its popularity is also due to integration as the resulting experience with the iPod and iTunes is, in public opinion, unrivaled by any other music management application/portable digital music player combination.

[Wondercow]

mdawson said:

> Wondercow wrote:
>
> It's not like Apple used to sell the MacOS to anyone and then locked everyone out when Apple got popular.

Well, that is not completely true. During the middle of the PowerPC . . .

It still remains that they didn't sell to anyone, but to their licensees. They also didn't revoke the licenses when the MacOS got popular--they were arguably at their lowest point in popularity. Good point though; I should have been clearer in my post.

[gtbannas]

OS X is a unique product, and the case has more merit than you may think.
It's more anti-competitive than a monopoly. If you forget market share for a second and focus on the actual practice, you'll see it is anti-competitive. Some of us use windows on the Mac via parallels, imagine if MS put it a kill switch that said you couldn't use windows on apple hardware, lawsuits would fly.
I do believe that if someone wants to build a system that matches Apple's hardware specs and can do so at a lower prices, they should not have to worry about a kill switch that says you have to buy our hardware, as long as they forfeit tech support from apple.
Some people use cars as an analogy, and a good one would be if Ford decided that you can't use any other parts than ford parts. So your car wouldn't work if Ford finds a non-ford spark plug, or starter, or other parts. Of course you could buy a Chevy but it's still an anti-competitive practice.

[trmbne2000]

Yea, except that you can still buy a hemi and put it in whatever you want: www.mopartsracing.com/parts/blocks.html

[vulpine]

[quote]Message was edited by: robgb

robgb said:

As someone who has built a number of PCs in my time, I can assure you that Macs are much more expensive than the equivalent PC. I just finished building a Core 2 Duo PC with four gigs of memory for under $500, using parts that are equivalent to or better than what you'd find in a Mac Pro. You can't purchase a Mac Pro for under a thousand, and the equivalent Mac would probably be closer to two grand.

I will dispute this conclusion catagorically. While it is true that you can build a good PC for less than $500 (I have done so myself more than once) you cannot match ALL of the hardware and software equivalents for anything less than 80% of the price of the Mac you are matching unless you choose only the cheapest of components. Simply matching the processor, RAM and hard drives does not give you a Mac-equivalent machine. Almost all of Apple's computers also include Bluetooth (which is very frequently ignored by other manufacturers,) Wireless (802.11x is not standard equipment in most desktop computers outside of Apple's) or built-in webcam (which is hardly available from any other manufacturer unless you pay extra.) These three things alone tend to drive other manufacturer's machines up to nearly the same price as the Mac being compared.
As for the Mac Pro, if you look inside one of those as compared to that "equivalent" PC, the differences are so remarkable as to make no comparison at all! The Mac Pro desktop is so well engineered that there is no obstruction to airflow within the case and adding and changing components is so simple that even a non-tech can add/replace a drive or add RAM. The Mac Pro is also the only commercially-available desktop computer capable of carrying and efficiently using up to 32Gbytes of RAM. This, alone, has the Mac Pro outclass all of its competitors.

Quote

I own both Macs and PCs and love them all. The OSX system offers me things that Windows and Linux don't. And it would be nice to be able to put any of those operating systems on any machine I choose. I can do that with Windows. I can do that with Linux. So why should Apple be allowed to be any different. Legal experts say their EULA is flawed and possible illegal.

I have to ask you one question in response to this statement: How reliable by comparison are your three machines? How much time do you spend in everyday maintenance on each machine that takes you away from your productivity?

In my own case, I usually spent at least 15 minutes a day and at least 1 additional hour a week running systems checks and malware scans on my Windows machine; something I never had to do at all in OS X. Ok, true, the majority of the issues were due to Windows being the most-used and most-attacked platform on the market, but I have to add that I also had far fewer hardware issues with my Macs from driver incompatibilities or even simple hardware breakdowns. I could never make that claim for any x86 box I ever owned, home-built or factory unit.

As for the EULA, ALL software creators have a EULA of one form or another in order to protect their product from misuse in one manner or another. Even Blizzard Entertainment, makers of "World of Warcraft" and other games, has set a precedent where they stopped a 'company' from creating unauthorized scripts that bypassed certain restrictions and damaged the quality of their game. In other words, at least one EULA has been strictly enforced and supported by the courts. Why should Apple be any different?

Quote

Psystar is merely trying to make a living building Mac clones. If anything, it seems to me that this would HELP Apple, allowing those who can't afford the average Mac to try out the operating system on something less expensive. And don't start talking to me about the Mac Mini, because as cute as it may be, it doesn't have near the power and flexibility of an equivalent costing PC.

Again, I catagorically disagree with you. They are not trying to "make a living" building Mac clones, they are patently trying to profit off of Apple's success by catering to the desires of the people not willing to pay Apple's price. The quality of Psystar's equipment is so low that if it didn't run Apple's OS X, no one would want it.
Oh, true, they leave out features that Apple builds into nearly every unit in order to lower the price and there are people who don't care that these features are missing, but the end result is that Apple's name gets dragged through the mud as soon as the 'true' end user starts having a problem and can't get support from either side.

Your comment about the Mac Mini has already been answered in my first paragraph. Even the Mac Mini has more in it than your "equivalent costing PC" and is much smaller besides, taking up far less desktop (or floor) space than that PC. The people who normally buy the cheapest PCs usually don't want anything more than what the Mini provides. Why force those people to add to the landfill problem by making them throw away their old display, keyboard and mouse? If they worked on the PC, then they will work on a Mini (granting that PS2 to USB adaptors may be needed.)

Quote

Chances are pretty good that once a customer tries a Mac clone, he'll want the real thing -- because, let's face it, they're awfully pretty.

There's more than Beauty to a Mac, my friend. There is a level of reliability in a Mac that is unmatched by any other manufacturer, despite the very vocal complaints of the naysayers. I admit that no platform is perfect and that problems are possible in any device; but with an 85% Customer Satisfaction rating, Apple far outstrips any of its competitors. A clone--especially an unauthorized clone--would do nothing but destroy Apple's reliability rating with its own poor-quality hardware and attaching Apple's name to it. Even if it's not an Apple computer, the fact that it's running OS X would destroy the Apple user experience for that user and create negative feelings for Apple as a brand.

Quote

And that's what Apple has going for it and always has. Their design. The iPod certainly wasn't the first mp3 player out there and far from the best, but everyone wants one because they look so damn cool.

Only partly right here. Apple made them look cool originally by making them a nice-sized white-and-stainless-steel housing. However, what you overlook is that it was also much easier to load and use than any competitor of the day. Even now, Apple has tried to maintain that simplicity while giving it more capability by far than the original models. It's not just that they look cool, but that they are still the easiest to use of all their competition--even Microsoft's Zune.

So I don't really understand Apple's refusal to allow their operating system to be used just like any other operating system. Just as the mp3 market seems to be all theirs, the Mac market will remain theirs as well.

Hmmm. You just don't see it, do you? While the Mac market will remain theirs as long as they hold control of it, the desktop computer market is anything but theirs. A huge difference! You compare the iPod to every other MP3 player out there, but you choose to compare the Mac to... Mac? Why? The iPod is just a music player, like Creative and even the Microsoft Zune; the difference is that it runs Apple's control system. The Mac is a desktop computer just as Dell, HP and even Lenovo; the difference is that only the Mac runs OS X. Why the double standard by you? True, there are complainers about Apple's proprietary handling of the iPod, but it has earned the popularity it has, not forced it. Now there are complainers about Apple's proprietary handling of the Mac, but the Mac does not have that majority share of Windows that was essentially forced by Microsoft's abuse of monopoly power in their demands that manufacturers preinstall ONLY Windows on their hardware. Apple is finally encroaching on that majority and the Windows proponents are crying foul. My personal guess is that somewhere underneath all of Psystar's business plan is the intent to reverse this trend.
And yes, I did join this forum just to make this comment. I'm neither a Mac or PC fanboy and I don't work for Psystar or any other Mac cloning company. I would simply like to use the software I pay for in any way I see fit.

Message was edited by: robgb

You have every right to express your opinion. I personally believe that if Apple did as you wish (and I'll admit that I had the same desires despite being an Apple user pretty much from the beginning,) the same thing would happen as in the early 90's; the clones sapped almost all of Apple's hardware sales without increasing the Mac OS market share in the least. It was disastrous for them then, and would be today.

[trmbne2000]

I completely agree with this post. No matter which way you cut it, PCs are less expensive than a comparable Mac... Just out of curiosity, I speced out two machines through HP and Apple...

Core 2 Quad @ 2.8 GHz
4 GB RAM
512 MB Graphics
500 GB HDD

Mac Pro Cost: $3499
HP Cost: $1609.99

I've used Macs quite often (our college uses them alot in our media labs), and I will admit that it is a nice OS. But I've never baught one for my self because they're simply too expensive. (I built myself a C2Q 2.8GHz, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD, 1.5GB Grafx, Vista Ult. x64 from scratch for under $2500 [w/ a 22in LCD])

I think that if Apple has such a great OS, there would be no harm to them in releasing it as a stand alone purchase, such as Windows (MS seems to be doing well for its self). I would gladly puchase an OSX license for about the same (or even a little more) than Vista. Especially now that, with the Intel chips, Apples are much closer to PCs, hardware-wise.

As far as the monopoly goes, I'm not completely sold either way on that. On the one hand, they are kind of pulling an MS, and forcing their OS to only run on Apple hardware, but then on ther other hand, as people have pointed out, it is their hardware. So they jury is still out on that one. Either way, there are a lot of people out there who are willing to use Apple products, but are held back by the price.

[mdawson]

Quote

vulpine wrote:

>

Quote

As for the Mac Pro, if you look inside one of those as compared to that "equivalent" PC, the differences are so remarkable as to make no comparison at all! The Mac Pro desktop is so well engineered that there is no obstruction to airflow within the case and adding and changing components is so simple that even a non-tech can add/replace a drive or add RAM. The Mac Pro is also the only commercially-available desktop computer capable of carrying and efficiently using up to 32Gbytes of RAM. This, alone, has the Mac Pro outclass all of its competitors.

As people of my generation would have said in our younger days: booyah! I remember when I first got my Power Mac G5 at the beginning of my second year of grad school. I had it delivered to the department so that I would know that it was secure after delivery and it sat in my lab for a while before I took it home. At one point I took it out of the box to take photos that my faculty advisor could use for his freshman computer course; one of the first labs is a crash course in computer hardware. When my faculty advisor and graduate program director, both engineers and longtime PC users that had never used Macs, saw the inside of my G5 and had the same reaction and made very positive statements respective to their experiences.

Quote

There was definitely an industrial engineer involved in that design. That is what the inside of a tower PC should look like.
? my faculty advisor, emeritus: agricultural engineer concentrating in machine design and automation.

Quote

Wow! Can you believe? (He?s Indian) It?s so clean? Where are all the cables? here are no wires. That is the epitome of what operations research attempts to achieve in production.
? my graduate program director, emeritus: bioresources engineering and operations research

As of last fall my grad program director is now the proud owner of a 24-inch aluminum iMac. As for my prior faculty advisor he is open to getting Macs as long as he is able to get the funding to get the additional equipment that he needs for his work (e.g., new NI-DAQ cards, software, etc.) particularly now that he can run a Mac dual platform.

[Wondercow]

gtbannas said:

OS X is a unique product, and the case has more merit than you may think.

It's more anti-competitive than a monopoly. If you forget market share for a second and focus on the actual practice, you'll see it is anti-competitive. Some of us use windows on the Mac via parallels, imagine if MS put it a kill switch that said you couldn't use windows on apple hardware, lawsuits would fly.

Funny since MS originally forbade all but the upper-most versions of Windows from running in a virtualized environment. No one sued.

Quote

I do believe that if someone wants to build a system that matches Apple's hardware specs and can do so at a lower prices, they should not have to worry about a kill switch that says you have to buy our hardware, as long as they forfeit tech support from apple.

It's fine to think that way, it's another to try to force that business model on a company who chooses not to employ it. We all live in a free-market society--if one disagrees with Apple's business choices he is free not to buy from Apple and go with their competitor.

[Wondercow]

trmbne2000 said:

I completely agree with this post. No matter which way you cut it, PCs are less expensive than a comparable Mac... Just out of curiosity, I speced out two machines through HP and Apple...


Core 2 Quad @ 2.8 GHz
4 GB RAM
512 MB Graphics
500 GB HDD


Mac Pro Cost: $3499
HP Cost: $1609.99

You need to do better research. There is no "Core 2 Quad @ 2.8 GHz" for sale by Apple. If you're looking at Mac Pros they use Xeon processors. The 2.8GHZ Quad-Core Xeon Mac Pro with your specs comes to $2999 not $3499. With Vista Ultimate 64-bit added (which is equivalent to OS X) your configuration comes out to $1859.99.

Then there's a lot that the Mac Pro includes that the HP doesn't:

* Two 1000BaseT ports (the d5000t I looked at doesn't have this option)
* Bluetooth (not available on the HP unless you also add WiFi)
* Up to 32 GB of RAM (HP supports 8 GB); ECC FB-DIMM (HP: SDRAM)
* Et cetera

Edit:

From a quick, cursory look at their site it seems this computer comes close to the basic Mac Pro. Cost? $2369. Doesn't come with Vista Ultimate, uses 667 MHz SDRAM and a slower front-side bus.

I'm sure there's a better comparison out there. In fact, I know there is--someone has already posted about six links to comparisons from other PC publications that explicitly show that Macs are often (if not always) less expensive.

[mdawson]

Quote

gtbannas wrote:

>

Quote

It's more anti-competitive than a monopoly. If you forget market share for a second and focus on the actual practice, you'll see it is anti-competitive. Some of us use windows on the Mac via parallels, imagine if MS put it a kill switch that said you couldn't use windows on apple hardware, lawsuits would fly.

The Mac is a platform that competes against the Wintel platform that constitutes 90+ percent of the PC market. So how does Apple tightly holding the reigns on their product constitute anti-competitive behavior? There are options in the PC market, which is what anti-trust law is set up to protect: the free market . No company is obliged to undermine their profitability and long term viability by allowing others to compete against them with their own brand .

And, as Wondercow has already noted, Microsoft did have a clause in the EULA of the home editions of Windows Vista forbidding the user to run the operating system in virtualization and no one sued. The difference is that unlike Apple, Microsoft is in the business off developing an operating system to run on other company?s hardware. Therefore, Microsoft cannot legally forbid any end user with computer capable of running Windows either natively, in virtualization or emulation from installing Windows on their machine as long as they legally purchase a license. As a matter of fact, Microsoft did eventually retract the clause because they perhaps realized in hindsight that they were again positioning themselves for an anti-trust lawsuit that they were bound to lose; well at least outside the US.

Quote

gtbannas wrote:

>

Quote

I do believe that if someone wants to build a system that matches Apple's hardware specs and can do so at a lower prices, they should not have to worry about a kill switch that says you have to buy our hardware, as long as they forfeit tech support from apple.

You can believe anything you want. What you cannot do is have the courts force a company to change its business model because it is not to your liking unless that business model is illegal, employs unlawful practices or can be shown to be a threat to the greater good.

Quote

gtbannas wrote:

>
Some people use cars as an analogy, and a good one would be if Ford decided that you can't use any other parts than ford parts.

No, that is actually a piss poor analogy, because Apple in no way prevents people from using non-Apple parts with Macs. If someone makes an alternate operating system for the Mac, as some developers have and continue to do, Apple is not bar the user from installing it. You outright buy a computer, so there is really nothing that the seller can really enforce after the purchase. Plus, you did purchased Apple hardware, Apple?s primary source of income, so what you choose to do after the fact is of little concern to them.

Apple is not a software company and profits little from after market OS sales. In order to do so, Apple would have to charge at least as much for OS X as Microsoft does for Windows, but they do not because the Mac OS is and has always been subsidized by Mac sales. When you buy a Mac you have already paid for the installed OS and you have paid into the continued development of the Mac OS. So if you decide to install another OS it is no skin off of Apple?s back.

Where parts in general are concerned, again Apple could care less what the user decides to do. The user may add or replace any user serviceable parts in a Mac that they choose. Apple in no way attempts to dictate what DIMMs, drives, printers, etc., you use with your Mac beyond providing basic specifications that after market parts, add-ons and peripherals need to meet in order to work with a Mac. If the user chooses to purchase parts that are not up to the specs provided by Apple or do something that voids their warranty, that is buyer?s prerogative and they will have to deal with the consequences.

[derekc]

>

trmbne2000 said:

>
> I completely agree with this post. No matter which way you cut it, PCs are less expensive than a comparable Mac... Just out of curiosity, I speced out two machines through HP and Apple... BLAH BLAH BALONEY

Wondercow said:

You need to do better research. There is no "Core 2 Quad @ 2.8 GHz" for sale by Apple. If you're looking at Mac Pros they use Xeon processors. The 2.8GHZ Quad-Core Xeon Mac Pro with your specs comes to $2999 not $3499. With Vista Ultimate 64-bit added (which is equivalent to OS X) your configuration comes out to $1859.99.... AND OTHER INTELLIGENT THINGS.

Thank you Wondercow for raking up the sh*t. And even when you actually compare Apples to Apples regarding the hardware, tromboner messed up by doing the usual bonehead move of only looking at the shelf price. If you don't consider the Cost Of Ownership (COO) and Return On Investment (ROI) you could be shooting yourself in the head. In the case of computers, there are thousands of IT dweebs with holes in their craniums for buying 'cheap' Windows PCs then finding there is an order of magnitude (10x) more cost in time and money to support them than an equivalent number of Macs. That cost dropped slightly with Windows XP but is IMHO back up again with Vista, which is a bigger PITA to administer and is a bigger annoyance to client machine users, despite the improved security features, and even BECAUSE of the improved security features.

So kids, if someone pulls one of these 'look, my PC costs less than your Mac' stunts, be sure to verify the machine feature list is identical AND be sure they considered the FULL COST and FULL VALUE of each machine AFTER you buy it. That's where you get the REAL price of any computer. Shelf price is always inadequate. Relying on shelf price alone is plain ignorance.