Whoever set up this so called "experiment" doesn't seem to get it. It's not just about the specs. You see, there's a reason you pay more for a Lexus than for a Chevrolet. Both have basically the same components, but one has a little more class, more luxury, more beauty, and yes the name itself will raise that price as well. When you buy a Mac, you're paying for more than the specs of the machine. After all, anyone can put together a piece-o-shit machine for 500 dollars with amazing specs, but at the end of the day it's still a piece-o-shit. Buying a mac is also buying the craftsmanship, it's buying the attention to detail, and the streamlined user experience. And that my friend, is worth every penny.

There is almost NO information here...

What experiment, and what equipment was the same? Which mac configuration did they use, and did they option up the Mac's RAM above base levels to skew the experiment on Apples admittedly high RAM upgrade prices?

Did the "hackintosh" have a camera? A bluetooth device, or Wireless N internal NIC, and Gigabit ethernet? There is much more than just processor speed, RAM ammounts, and hard drive capacity, if those were even the same.

Add the 150$ Firmware addition from EFi-X, to be able to even RUN Mac OS?

Does it have a warranty? Does it have tech support? Does it have an aluminum case and a tempered glass screen? Did he count the cost of an apple keyboard and mouse, or did the experimenter just use one he had laying around?

There are FAR too many questions to say that this is anywhere near the same thing before the questions are answered.

Well in my opinion Mac is just overrated, its basically linux with added features. Interface is so cluttered and awkward.

OK, after looking at the specs more closely...

The PC uses 2 500GB hard drives, NOT a single 1-terabyte drive. The 1TB drive will probably cost more, especially from a computer retailer, than from a parts warehouse. Same capacity is not necessarily the same thing, when price is the comparison point.

A standard ATX or variant motherboard may be less than 100$, but an apple logic board MADE for fitment in the iMac certainly does NOT cost that little. iMac is not an ATX form factor computer. Comparing Apples and sour grapes, so to speak...

I did not see a bluetooth device, or a wireless-N device. Let alone built in.

400$ for a screen, and 100$ for a case is probably not as expensive as a spec-built aluminum iMac casing, and the heat management that goes into it being a vertically standing thin computer.

Again, that is without all the overhead costs of assembly in a factory, freight on a completed computer, although that is perhaps mitigated by shipping loose parts, but Apple, Dell, HP, etc.... all have overhead costs for running their companies, and making products available.

It is almost always cheaper to buy parts and build a computer on a work bench than buying a reliable, warranted, delivered and supported product from a large corporation, including the "PC" manufacturers.

Are they asking how much a Dell tag, or an HP logo costs?

And, Taurus, if you think the Mac interface is cluttered, then you must not have ever run Windows, Solaris, or anything aside from a stripped out version of linux.

Apple's interface is about as clean and intuitive as they come, and some of that always depends on preference configuration, for Apple, or *nix. A stripped out GUI takes more keystrokes and mouse movement to get to anything you need, anyway, when nothing is directly at hand. It may look clean, but that doesn't mean it is an efficient interface. Most users don't practice file management discipline anyway, and navigating file structure messes negates any advantage to having a clean pared down interface, also.

This reeks of comparing a kit car to an actual Ferrari. They may look alike, and the kit car might have a big engine and light weight, and theoretically go very fast, but there is a reason they are not the same thing, inside and out.

A year ago I would've said no. As a power Windows user, I got fed up with constantly troubleshooting and fixing my Windows machine and switched to a MacBook Pro. It has been so much more useful then I frequently take myself for not doing it earlier. I consider the time saved as money in my pocket!

Do you people work for Jobs, or what? Sounds like a freaking marketing campaign instead of a comment section.

the extra $ you pay is also for tech support, Apple support is very good and their computers are designed and marketed towards the novice users who will require loads of tech support.

Stone, you and all the other apple-smashers just don't get it - never will get it - and sit there all fat dumb and happy because you're part of the pc world - why did you even bother to read the article in the first place? Could it have been because secretly down deep you really really pine for an apple, but don't have the "stones" to put up with the hoohah you'd take from all your other pc buddies?

Apple afficianados read articles like this to see what the hoi polloi are blathering about. The hoi polloi read articles like this so they can prove to themselves in some sort of group-think gestalt how much smarter they are 'cause they got a 'puter at wally-world? LOL

Oh, Stone. Isn't it just a bit possible that out of the probably millions of Mac owners who *don't* work for Apple can have such fervent love for the brand? Even I, as a primarily PC user, know that you don't have to be employed by Jobs' marketing department to be quick to list the positive points of a Mac.

iMacs may very welll be cheaper if you define a PC as a tower/monitor/mouse/keyboard/webcam/speaker/microphone. All of those come with a Mac. Most PC's need them seperately.

Things that are better tend to cost more

That is not a new concept.

Mac is better than PC (especially if the PC has windows since windows is worthless garbage) so it makes sense for it to cost more

It's always funny to see the frothing elitist mac fanboys come screaming into these articles on Dvice.

This isn't an article about Mac vs. PC, it's an article about home-built mac clone vs. actual Mac. The title is misleading, but all its really saying is that you pay a lot more by having Apple build your computer for you than you would if you built it yourself. Hello? This isn't news. People have known this about PCs for years - you can build a dell equivalent yourself much more cheaply than buying a dell. The only remarkable thing here is the degree of difference.

Not this again. The cost issue refers to the average price because the average spec of a Windows PC is way lower than a Mac (even though OS demands are opposite!) Apple won't allow you to accidentally buy a cheap one and have a bad experience. When you compare the prices of all-in-ones or actually spec the other PCs up the Mac still stacks up well.

Let's hope pressure to reduce the price doesn't affect the quality.

McD

I see a lot of people arguing that "oh, of course computers from shitty retailers like Dell and such are cheaper than our high-end Macs." OK then, let's look at ThinkPads, the highest-end PC laptops on the market, with a build quality equal or greater than that of Apple. My current laptop (a T61) cost me $1200. The MacBook Pro has a minimum price of $2000. The MBP has a higher-res (but same physical size) screen, a nicer graphics card, and an extra 0.2 GHz; otherwise, identical specs. (The MBP has a webcam, the T61 has a fingerprint reader, it's a wash.) When you factor these (and the cost of the OS) out of the price difference, that's still at least $400 more just for the Mac logo. Yes, I know you're all saying "but ThinkPads are so ugly," but are they $400 worth of ugly?

It's not the logo that I'm paying for. I used windows most of my life until several months ago when I bought a Mac. I have to say that it was one of the best purchases I have made. I continue to find things about my Mac that make my life easier, especially the little details and touches that quickly make a difference when I am working on my computer all day. That's what I am paying for - the whole experience. And I don't mind paying a little extra for that. It's well worth it.

EXACTLY!

It's funny how offended all of the mac users became, because of an article stating that macs are overpriced.

The thing is they are overpriced.

It's also funny that people seem to be confusing the hardware with the OS. This article is not about which one is the better OS, it is simply stating that you pay a lot more for the hardware then you should.

And although there are good things about macs, they also have their problems.

Furthermore, the biggest reason why people buy macs it's because they look pretty and have flashy images, not because of the performance you can get out of them.

To see how good apple is just check this out:
http://itvibe.com/news/4535/

He's talking about hardware. Gosh the drones are still hyping OSX when the issue is hardware.

First thing first... THERE IS A MAC UNDER $1000!!!
It's called the mini!

OK all...
Here's the deal. My first system was DOS, before moving to the Amiga. I now use a PC. I work on a PC. My PRIMARY machine is a Lenovo ThinkPad T61p FULLY upgraded, and when I purchase it in January of this year, it retailed for over $3k. I also work with, and on, MACs, including the replacement of screens and logic boards, so I know the insides very well.

A current production iMac is for all intensive purposes, a laptop. It uses a laptop motherboard and components (DVD/RW, WiFi, BlueTooth, power supply, etc), in order to fit it into such a small form factor. These components are more expensive.

The EMI (as oposed to BIOS) is also a costly upgrade.

As far as the OS cost, it's about half the price of Vista Ultimate.

Is a Mac superior? No. Nor is it inferior. It is an alternative to Windows, or Linux.

Mac has decent support, realitively straight forward user interface (once you PC guys take the time to learn it (Linux guys alrady know it as it is graphically very similar to Gnome or KDE, and the file system is, for all intensive purposes, identicle)), and alot harder to F*#$ up than Windows (pre-Vista Windows that is).

You want to see expensive? Look at a Sun or SGI workstation. Quality, performance, and obscurity go hand in hand.

So stop with argument. IT IS WHAT IT IS!!!

Oh, and while you can get OSX to run on PC hardware, it is a PITA, and you CANNOT get anywhere near identicle specs for less.

I worked on COmputers where the external HD were the size of a washing Machine and they were only 300 MB's. I worked on the first XT's I was a PC user until 2005 when My ex Partner converted me to A MAC my first Mac was a eMac and then a Mac Mini, I just upgraded to a 24" iMac and next week I am getting a 15" Macbook Pro. I say I cannot wait for OS 10.6. Down with PC's Mac is Gaining in % of users. Soon this world will be All MAC. and I also am not ashamed to use my real name like some of you PC users...

Krisy

Dunsmuir, CA

Having just returned to Apple after 6 years of More or less forced PC use. I can state that the quality of the Mac is one thing that raises the price. I had a custom-built PC with no compromises and the iMac so far exceeds the quality that there is simply no way to compare the two. Even though the PC had two 3 GHz P4 processors and the Max 2 GB of Ram, the iMac with one duo-core 2.66 GHZ processor and 2 GB of RAM far outperforms the PC. Yes, even running windows-native games. No, I did not have to install a copy of Windows or an emulator. Crossover Games allows me to run my flight simulator and other windows games on a Micro$oft free zone.

Macs cost more because they are worth it.