Better post this before someone else does:

The base price of the new Apple Mac Pro Quad Desktop ($2,499) might have some people reeling from sticker shock. But during the keynote speech today at WWDC, Apple compared the Mac Pro to an equivalent Dell workstation and found the Mac to be much cheaper. We figured we’d check their math, and sure enough, when compared to a similarly-equipped Dell system, the Mac Pro comes out looking like an absolute bargain.

Take the Dell Precision Workstation 690, for instance. When kitted out with two Intel Xeon 5150 2.66GHz dual-core processors, 250GB hard drive, 2GB of 667MHz RAM, and 16x DVD burner, you’ll end up paying $3,637. That’s over $1,100 more than the base Mac Pro, which has a similar configuration. And unlike the Mac Pro, which can run Windows XP via Boot Camp, I wouldn’t expect to see Mac OS X supported on this Dell any time in the near future.

from http://blog.dealnews.com/?p=45

While I do concede to these facts, I’m still not convinced as far as true value for money goes.

First, this holds true if you decide you want a branded system. And let’s face it, the choice of getting an Apple, while not exclusive to, usually is because of a conscious brand-oriented decision.

So in that case, yes, Apple will definitely be cheaper. I guess I was surprised that it was true as well for the desktop arena. I guess this is a good thing.

But I’ve been mulling over this but can’t get over the fact that at that budget bracket, and at those specifications, you have to be a really serious computer user. And here’s how I see it:

If you’re serious enough to be wanting those kinds of specs, then it would be safe to assume either:

1. Don’t need it, but could afford it – You know nothing of computers but you have nothing better to do with your money.
2. Actually need it – in this case I guess it’s safe to assume that you know your stuff.

I’d like to assume that people fall into the the second category. And I can’t help but wonder why someone who already knows his stuff would even consider buying a branded machine in the first place.

What I mean to say is that yes, branded PCs are just as expensive (or even more expensive) than their Apple counterparts, but why would you want to even consider buying a branded computer as an alternative.

Given the level of knowledge a person who needs a quad-core system, it’s reasonable why they would still consider an Apple: because of their awesome after-sales support and warranties. But people have almost nothing to gain from choosing a branded PC over Apple – even if it came out cheaper.

If they’re worried about warranties, then it’s either because they have an Apple (because of how proprietary their designs are¹ ) or because they have less then adequate knowledge of how hardware works. If this were the case, The only choice would be an Apple – because as I said, there would be nothing to gain from a branded PC.

What has always impressed me in the PC arena is the clone/generic market. How purchasing power is given to the consumer. To handpick the best components, and be considerably cheaper than any branded computer manufacturer.

While people might say that it would be unfair to compare Apple’s to generic PCs, I usually respond: Nobody forced Apple to be proprietary. Nobody forced them to lock down their hardware. Whatever benefits they have gained by doing so² doesn’t exempt them from being compared to any type of alternative out there, branded or not.

So yes, I will compare them to generic boxes if applicable. If it was a branded high performance PC that was cheaper than generic boxes, then I would be comparing it to that. For as long as a quantitative hardware comparison can be made… it is justified.

There used to be a time when users ultimately say that “you’re comparing apples and oranges” – of course this isn’t applicable anymore. Apple users seem to be a bit green on the x86 market. Aside from the fact that they’re constantly in denial of the market share,³ I guess they aren’t used to the fact that even before they got here, PC users never really respected the “branded” concept – which is something I’m sure Apple users have trouble grasping.

But it has always been a fact in the PC scene that a branded computer was just a bonus, but never meant you had a superior machine. If you had cash to buy an AlienWare, you had cash to configure a more powerful machine at the same price. And PC users had no problems comparing those branded PCs with their generic counterparts. This is why you have sites which have articles that guide consumers into purchasing individual components to fit a certain budget. That is a culture which Apple users could never grasp unless they engage in some form of anti-brainwashing procedure.

In fairness, Apple is showing great promise with how competitive it is with regards to the high performance market. What would be interesting to watch is how they deal with the regular consumer market. If they intend to release a machine that’s in the middle of the Mini, and the iMac. Or maybe even simply dropping the prices of the iMac.

The only legitimate appeal (which isn’t brand related) which gives it an edge over even a cheaper PC would be the dual boot. I guess the question left to ask in that case is if the need to dual boot justifies the extra cash. Honestly, I have a dual boot system (XP x64 and x32) and I have to say it’s much better to have two separate machines. My downloads/graphics/etc. are on the x32 partition and all my audio stuff is in the x64 partition. And sometimes I wish I could use both at the same time – it can be a hassle to have to reboot into one or the other. Simply put, as you get more serious with the usage of your system, you’ll find it more preferable to have two separately running systems. To me, the dual-booting is more for testing purposes, novelty, or bragging rights at best.

But that doesn’t really matter. Either way, it should be an interesting couple of years for the whole computer industry – as well as it’s consumers.