how much is a six core 3.2 unit with a w3670 cpu from dell or hp.
will dell or hp let you buy a quad with a 2.8 w3530 and put in a hex w3670.
a 2010 base quad 2.8 becomes a hex 3.2 cost is 2900
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why is the MP so expensive?
- Thread starter Loa
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
how much is a six core 3.2 unit with a w3670 cpu from dell or hp.
will dell or hp let you buy a quad with a 2.8 w3530 and put in a hex w3670.
a 2010 base quad 2.8 becomes a hex 3.2 cost is 2900
Aye, that's true...
Impressive margin.
In terms of workstations and servers on the PC side, I've seen both extremes (rats nest to extremely clean and well laid out, even for the same model). So I've always wondered if the sloppy units (not a result of bad design) were the result of the system being assembled on either a Monday or Friday (spaced out/not interested in what they're doing due to weekend activities - daydreaming if you will, and possibly hung over on Monday
True - the Precision line has cables, but they are neatly organized. Still, Apple's cable-less approach saves on materials and definitely has a professional, competent look to its internal engineering.
Yowzers. Time for me to do some image searching...
Not impossible, but probably not desired. Dell does indeed use H-IPS panels for their UltraSharp line... but overall HP quality over the last several years has been pretty low...
Hmmm...
There's problems with OS X and firmware as well on the Mac side, so nothing is perfect. Macs can even get infected with malware if the user isn't careful, so they're not even immune to this.
I say let the user figure out which platform is best fit for them (system + software + any training that would be involved), and get on with doing whatever they need to do.
I ultimately agree, and do know Macs are not immune to malware... still, OS X - despite the nitpicks I have - is far more competent and solid than Windows 7 is, and for all of 7's benefits, I prefer XP and its "Fischer Price" appearance - XP isn't as buggy, and Win7 SP1 did not address two major problems incorporating network-based file transfers eating up local disk space (that utils like Windirstat can't locate), and a bug with the power save feature not turning off the secondary monitor (the monitor goes back but the power button remains green and you can see the backlight glow. The backlight should be off and the power button amber...). Windows was and will always be dilettante and second-rate. And I've been in PC support for 20 years. (If I'm still sane I count myself lucky...)
Look at the source... biased certainly comes to mind.
As per the internals, most of the MP uses cables as well, but they're routed behind the ODD carrier and logic board (i.e. PSU and ODD bay cables).
As per traveling around the world, I've not tried to lug a workstation with me, as it's meant to live on a desk. So I don't know for certain this would make it or not, but as they handle being shipped around the world to various markets, it's not unreasonable to think it actually would survive.
BTW, you'd be shocked at the way the Gorilla squad, err... UPS handles packages. So other carriers probably aren't going to baby a computer either due to their schedules and quotas (i.e. n units scanned, address verified, and loaded per unit time).
I'm also use a Logitech Trackball (been in surgery for CTS once, and I don't want to repeat that one if at all possible, as there's a point paralysis sets in - I'm not up for that, so I'll deal with a little pain and pay for good ergonomic input devices).
If that was the case where you work, that's great. But its a specific instance, not the entire computing world.
For me, it was the opposite due to software and some very specific hardware issues with the MP (BTW, it's not a result of EFI, as I could get an EFI based Intel board to do what I need, so it's a limitation of Apple's implementation of EFI).
Users need to figure out the details for themselves, as their specifics matter.
I figured you'd have realized this given we're discussing the Mac Pro (professional system = professional use = professional software). Sorry for any confusion here.
I'm a bit lost here... I did a search and came up with a link (here), and it seems to be a professional society/guild of creative professionals. Which to me, means a bunch of independent operators/small businesses banding together as a means of sharing information, such as what's relevant to finding continued work (as most of it is contract based). So I wouldn't be surprised to find a mixture of both Windows and OS X users (not sure on the split, as I didn't see any information as to statistics).
We're on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of which platform suited our needs best (actually quite good for discussion).
But some may be able to live with a mixture as well. And even if a specific usage is still polarized, the details may not be the same (different reasons that conclude one OS is better for them than another).
So specific usage to me is absolutely critical, and if the user doesn't understand this, they're in danger of making a mistake. Better to put in the time and learn what their needs really depend on, then they can do the research to see what will be the best fit. Time consuming, but worth it IMO (less wasted time immediately comes to mind, not to mention aggravation).
I find Windows to be quite customizable, and generally speaking, has been one of it's biggest attractions (I don't just mean appearance either). But this is really only seen by those that figure out how to utilize this, as it can be daunting for someone that's just getting started for example (don't know what's the best fit, or likely how to do it). There is information on the web though (takes time, but worth it IMO if it saves more time in the end).
As per maintenance, most of this, if not all, can be done via automatic scheduling (good software utilities such as AV will do this on their own). If it's done manually otherwise, a script could make it an automated process (reducing errors due to the fact a particular function/feature wasn't run manually).
Mysterious behavior usually comes down to driver interactions (i.e. one or more is poorly written). Researching things before you buy helps, but does take time some may not be willing to put in (or realize they even should). nVidia graphics cards are a wonderful example... they just suck.
So if there's no specific reason to use such a product (i.e. no necessity for CUDA), selecting an ATI card would likely be a better choice in regards to fewer headaches.This isn't what I'm saying at all. It comes down to specific usage, which may make one platform over another the better choice (PC or Mac has nothing to do with it in terms of hardware - software usage and budgets are the primary dictating factors in my experience).
Exactly.
When I referred to electronic components, I was talking about semiconductors down to passives (resistors, capacitors, and inductors), not finished sub assemblies such as complete HDD's, ODD's, graphics cards, ...
As it happens, Foxconn also makes HP's consumer gear, and I wouldn't be surprised if they've also become the ODM for their enterprise gear as well.
Assuming this is the case, it doesn't bode well IMO, given Foxconn's current reputation for design and QC.This is my observation as well.
I'd love to see a MP's backplane board out in under 15 minutes, or a front fan assy. swapped out in under 5 minutes. This is actually possible in other workstations, as every major sub component (fan, board, disk, ...) is meant to be serviceable. The entire point of this is to keep the system online as long as possible (downtime = not wanted, and when it happens, is to be reduced to the absolute minimum).
There's a little validity to the software side, but that's a result of Windows' market share. If OS X had the dominant market share, users would need AV software and such for it instead, as those that write malware are going to go where the best odds are.
But the "advantage" to the MP on this issue is a result of happenstance, not design. This is a substantial difference to me.
No, he hit the nail on the head.
Electronic components = semiconductors, such as the CPU, chipset, PWM controller, ... down to the passive components (resistors, capacitors, and inductors).
These are used to make every single sub component (main board, disk, graphics card, ...) used in the system. So of course sub assemblies/components are the same.
In terms of the main boards used by Apple and other vendors, is primarily due to the firmware, not the hardware (there are some hardware differences, such as PC systems of workstation class tend to include additional features/components for hardware such as RAID and SAS drive support). But the firmware is what allows Apple to tie their systems to OS X (validation schemes rely on information stored in the ROM's).
Poor planning and research is the biggest reason this happens on the PC side in my experience though (there are exceptions, such as when there's say one, perhaps 2 choices, but totally unpreventable/unsolvable issues are rare in comparison).Limitless upgrades with limitless problems. Sorry don't want any of that.
Even the MP isn't immune to this.
To be safe, and not presume that yours are like any other, can you snap some pics of the internals?
Either we could see for ourselves, or possibly even explain why the differences you're mentioning exist (i.e. exposed cables can have a reason or just be a the result of a lazy assembler).
I'm not entirely sure if this is the report I think you're referring to, but if it is, you have to take into consideration that PC support they've rated is based on consumer systems, not enterprise.
Budget boxes are cheap for a reason; they cut corners everywhere they can, and it's not limited to the hardware. Support suffers too.
So to compare like to like, you have to compare the MP with Enterprise grade service on the PC side. Once you do this, the PC side really does have a significant advantage (i.e. same day onsite service, and that can even be upgraded). Worst case, the tech diagnoses the problem one day, and fixes it the next.
Apple can take a week, and you may not have a choice but to carry it in (IIRC, the distance limit in the US is 50 miles, and people I've talked to that had Apple Onsite service, indicated the Apple personnel on the phone acted like it was an extreme favor). Not my idea of how to treat people/do business.
Take yours apart, and see for yourself. The cables are there, but routed behind the logic board (SATA cables may not be; 2009 or newer = use traces on the PCB).
Now does this look nicer? Yes.
But it may not make service easier, such as if you've a bad cable. What makes this worse, is Apple uses custom cable assemblies, which means you'd have to wait for a part. This isn't unheard of with PC's either (no matter if it's under warranty or if the user has to cover the repairs), but there's better odds that a cable can be found locally and get the affected system up and running faster.
Whether or not it would affect repair time would depend on the specifics, but from what I've seen, the MP does take longer to do a full tear-down (i.e. harder, and thus takes longer to get major components out, such as logic boards and fans). HDD's, ODD's, and PCIe cards are easy. But this isn't applied to the entire system, as you can find in an enterprise grade PC (comparing the MP's internals to cheap consumer grade PC's isn't a fair comparison at all).
I've run into more issues with XP than Win7 (Vista was horrible before SP1).
Not sure what you ran into there, as the details matter (don't recall this at all).
As per the monitor, it's hard to say if it was a result of power management or the card's drivers (or part of an additional software package for the card, not included in the drivers Windows would pull in automatically).
It just doesn't seem to end. Some folks just can't handle the fact that Mac Pros are really high quality and really good. The endless posts pointing out that more PC processing power can be had for less than a Mac Pro says nothing about why a user would choose a Mac Pro. The constant barrage of this many GHz versus that many GBs is like arguing automobile brands using horsepower and tire width as prime factors.
2869$ for Dell T3500 with W3690. Over 800$ difference.
2039$
Sure.
Still pricey and you can't even compare DIY upgrades to a system bought from an OEM. Everything becomes cheaper if you get the cheapest model and then eBay all the other parts. I doubt enterprises do this though. The support and reliability is far more important than saving a few bucks.
That's the average length of nanofrog's posts
Nothing wrong with that though, they are always detailed and spot-on. Much better than answering every point with one sentence which leaves nothing but questions.I'm pretty sure there's longer ones in MR somewhere.
If you've read the last page or two of this one, it's not actually an argument of GHz and GB's since both PC and Mac Pro workstations are built out of the same hardware (Intel Xeon CPU's and corresponding chipsets).
That leaves software as the only real differentiating factor in terms of functionality. Now whether or not this is applicable, is up to the user and their specific needs.
But in terms of fanboi's, those that have imbibed too much of Steve's Special Kool-Aid and think the MP is a superior machine in terms of hardware design, aren't digging past the marketing (Apple's been very successful in this regard). There's nothing special about the electronics on the boards (it's based on Intel's reference designs just like any other board designed to work with the same CPU's - they can tinker with features, such as adding in RAID or SAS controllers on the board sorts of things). As per the software aspect with Macs, things tend to get carried away (i.e. personal opinion offered up as fact, rather than a reasonable explaination of why it works for them = special case, not a universal rule/law).
The MP's definitely prettier to me on the outside, and I'll give Apple props for that. PC vendors typically don't put much into exterior design into their workstations (more of an afterthought). Dell seems to by trying though (HP's workstations OTOH, are abysmal looking).
There really is only one reason for wanting a Mac and that is OSX. I find it a much more productive and pleasant environment than Windows but I can't say that it offers superior performance. In fact, the few cross-platform benchmarks out there indicate that Windows has the advantage.
What I am concerned about is that Apple seems to have lost interest in power-computing as a result of their phenomenal success with consumer electronics. I would not be surprised if they kill off the MacPro eventually; Apple is all about a "magical" consumer's experience these days.
I will continue to use OSX for my generic computing activities (browsing, email etc.) as it is definitely less of a hassle online, but right now I'm leaning towards a custom-built PC as my next workstation.
I would not have dreamt of it 5 years ago. Apple for consumers, Windows for power users, but there it is...
Yup, Apple's design is unparalleled and definitely exudes a sense of quality that other computers cannot touch. But I kind of like the no-nonsense look of the HP workstations better than Dell's attempts at sleek design. If you don't have Jonathan Ives, you'd better stick to the basics as things get tacky real quick.
What I am concerned about is that Apple seems to have lost interest in power-computing as a result of their phenomenal success with consumer electronics. I would not be surprised if they kill off the MacPro eventually; Apple is all about a "magical" consumer's experience these days.
I will continue to use OSX for my generic computing activities (browsing, email etc.) as it is definitely less of a hassle online, but right now I'm leaning towards a custom-built PC as my next workstation.
I would not have dreamt of it 5 years ago. Apple for consumers, Windows for power users, but there it is...
Yup, Apple's design is unparalleled and definitely exudes a sense of quality that other computers cannot touch. But I kind of like the no-nonsense look of the HP workstations better than Dell's attempts at sleek design. If you don't have Jonathan Ives, you'd better stick to the basics as things get tacky real quick.
Last edited:
Actually I have to deal with either the RAF or sea containers.
I wouldn't count on OEM "Plastic" Petes surviving.True although loads of people have said the biggest advantage of OS X is that it doesn't get in the way of your work.
Pixel Corps does produce software solutions, but they dropped the Windows line because it represented on 15% of sales, but 85% of support calls. Not cost effective. They certainly use OS X, Windows and Linux for production, but don't produce software for Windows.
Agreed.
Exactly.
In my case I keep a desktop for about 6 or 7 years, so paying an extra £600 for a Mac Pro isn't an issue.
In theory yes, in reality no. As the old saying goes 'If my uncle were a woman, he would be my aunt".
My reference was to actual usage rather than internal layout. In any case the Dells have gone to meet their maker and there was much rejoicing in Repro.
I think it is important to note though that not everyone buying a Mac Pro is in Enterprise or large scale Enterprise. It could be an individual writing, doing music, video or photography and the Apple service and support could be important to them. In my case it is.
My experience with Apple over the last 15 years has been very good and when I compare it with experience that myself, friends and colleagues have had with the Windows OEMs, it is nothing short of excellent.
Me too.
Well I'm off with the air force for the next couple of weeks and not sure when I will be back online. One thing to note though is a difference in language. I find if an American considers something "good value" it is often because of low price, here in the UK "good value" tends to mean that it will serve you well and last a long time.
Absolutely not but the service other OEMs offer with their workstations is enterprise level. They don't offer workstations with consumer warranty and service like Apple does
There is nothing wrong with Apple's support but it lacks some features that may be important to some users but again, that depends on the case. Even if you are a freelancer, you would definitely benefit from the onsite service, especially if you don't live near a repair center. On the other hand, if you leave near an Apple Store, it's not a big task to lug the Mac Pro there and in that case, the onsite service should be available too. I think a lot of all this is based on one's own experience and preferences. If you have had issues with "Plastic Petes" in the past, it explains why you were able to justify the "premium". In the end, it can end up being cheaper when you can spend more time doing work
That is why I switched few years ago and to be honest, I haven't regretted it. All in all, every thing has its pros and cons.Have a good trip BTW
They don't use protective shipping crates that get loaded into the larger crate/loaded on a pallet (i.e. metal crate with dense foam cut/shaped for delicate equipment, then that's added to a larger packed load, whether it be a large metal container or pallet that's loaded into the cargo hold)?Actually I have to deal with either the RAF or sea containers.
If not, I don't see how anything in the way of sensitive equipment would survive being tossed out as part of an air drop (rough enough if the pilot lands the plane first).
UPS only drops things ~ 6 stories, and that breaks quite a bit of stuff. This is personal preference though. Not to be discounted, but isn't the result of software dictating the platform (i.e. user has a choice of platforms, such as if they're using Adobe CS5, as it's developed for multiple platforms). Such cases need to be explained with their reasoning as to why one platform was better than another, and I see this as software, not the machine itself (hardware).
May seem like nitpicking, but it's important IMO to differentiate the difference. Makes information clearer to those that are trying to research information for themselves, which is helpful.
I didn't see anything that indicated they develop any software at all.
Consumer grade systems are hard pressed to last this long in terms of usability. Enough corners may be cut on such systems, that the hardware may not even work that long (consumer systems are designed for a 3 year cycle).
Workstations OTOH, are much more likely to do so, as they're designed around a 5 year cycle, and can be kept in service longer (may be down-lined to other users with lower performance requirements in order to get more than 5 years out of it, but it's not trash by any means). This is more to do with business economics though. Those that get brand new systems are able to do more work in the same period of time with faster hardware, so there's a financial incentive to upgrade, and moving the existing system to another user means they can reduce the number of new systems that need to be purchased.
I don't see the correlation with this.
In simple language (put your preferences aside for the moment), any OS has vulnerabilities. They may differ between one another (i.e. Windows more of custom/proprietary implementations for core functions vs. Unix so vulnerabilities may lie in different areas from one another), but if an OS has the majority of the market share, malcontents, criminals, ... will go after that platform (playing the statistics to increase n successes; even if the % of successes are lower, there's far more targets to go for, and n will be higher).
What was so difficult about them?My reference was to actual usage rather than internal layout. In any case the Dells have gone to meet their maker and there was much rejoicing in Repro.
Not sure what/why the "rejoicing".
I'm not saying there couldn't be a good reason, I'm just not understanding it (too little information to give me a clear mental picture).Absolutely.
I actually suspect the independent/SMB (and I stress small) buyers are where the sales volume of the MP comes from, not large entities.
When you and your colleagues mean Windows OEM experiences, was that with proper workstations or consumer systems?
The difference is drastic, and has only gotten worse over the last decade or so. I really can't stress this enough, and when I see such comments, I tend to find that a large portion of it is from calling in on consumer systems, not workstations (user may have thought it a workstation, but the vendor does not, and therefore doesn't send support calls to the Enterprise Support Dept.).
A modern example would be an i7 based system that runs on the same clock speed would go to the consumer side (i.e. i7-X980 vs. W3680), while the Xeon would go to the enterprise side. Now that consumer system probably has an option to upgrade the support status (may not actually be enterprise, but far better than what's standard), but users tend not to think about this, and won't opt to pay for it if it's offered. Then curse the support they receive.
Part of the expense of the enterprise systems is the result of the improved support (they can't cut corners here as they've done with the consumer side).
I see "good value" as cost/performance, not cost alone. So I consider software and support as well as the hardware aspect. Not sure if your premise that the UK is more inclined to this or not, but generally speaking in the US, I'd have to agree that cost has the greatest influence (not sure that they've lost any sense of the proper definition of good value, or if it's just due to their individual economic reality = sucks). For example, the cost of living has been rising, but wages haven't in general for a decade or so (longer for some, shorter for others), and we're by far a Service Industry based economy (history of low wages in the US).
As per independent/SMB business owners, they're usually strapped for cash in my experience (most go out of business due to under capitalization), and have no choice but to take a lower/the lowest cost solution (i.e if they do go with a MP, they compromise on things like upgrades). Storage in particular from what I've seen, such as not only running less than they should for a primary pool, but may run an insufficient backup as well (or don't have one at all
).And have a safe trip.
I think a lot of all this is based on one's own experience and preferences. If you have had issues with "Plastic Petes" in the past, it explains why you were able to justify the "premium". In the end, it can end up being cheaper when you can spend more time doing work
Have a good trip BTW
I got online pretty quickly.
I use the Mac Pro to bring home the bacon and Windows machines have just let me down too often. Deciding at very inconvenient times to not connect to the internet, not print or just freeze and refuse to boot. I don't have this problem with OS X or Ubuntu. When I get a call at 2 in the morning to write a response to some event that has just happened and need to present it by 8 am I don't want to be playing Mr Fixit to a system of badly written drivers.
No and I have seen several inches of wood split through. I wouldn't want to risk it.
They do. Source -Alex Lindsay
I don't see the correlation with this.
In simple language (put your preferences aside for the moment), any OS has vulnerabilities. They may differ between one another (i.e. Windows more of custom/proprietary implementations for core functions vs. Unix so vulnerabilities may lie in different areas from one another), but if an OS has the majority of the market share, malcontents, criminals, ... will go after that platform (playing the statistics to increase n successes; even if the % of successes are lower, there's far more targets to go for, and n will be higher).
All that is true, but what I was getting at is that in the Real World OS X suffers less from malware, so is a better choice.
Windows proved to have issues that interrupted workflows and suffered a lot more in the way of downtime.
Workstations. Windows got in the way of work and malware incidents resulted in considerable downtime.
What you describe sounds like a consumer grade PC (not as heavily tested in terms of hardware/driver interactions). And this is on the system vendor, not Windows, since they were the ones in control of what hardware went into the box (i.e. they can order changes if there's problems during the testing).
They just use wood crates, or do you mean pallets in terms of wood?
I also get the impression you mean that there's no custom foam protection for sensitive equipment either. Seems foolish to me.
I'll try and take a deeper look.
I realize this, but just understand it's the result of happenstance (smaller market share), not development skill.
So if Macs get a sudden surge in the market (i.e. iOS devices or even the laptops and iMac take off in sales numbers), they'll be targeted more than they are now.
I don't doubt that something like this happened, but wonder about the systems used (in terms of validation testing performed before it got the go ahead for RTM). The other aspect is I wonder about specific testing on the IT end (particularly if there was heavy customization on the software side). That is, where you forced to use something that didn't interact well, or was there no time to test/test properly in the first place (either no test bed, or enough time for proper testing before the full system deployment date)?
I could see this with consumer systems or business users that don't have a lick of sense when it comes to internet safety (download anything under the sun, without thought as to whether or not it's malware infested or not).
I just can't help but get the impression that something fell short on the IT side somehow (firewall not set properly <"too open">, lack of proper training = user errors, ...).
Not entirely true. Look back at OS9. It had a minimal market share when compared to OS X nonetheless it was plaggued with all kinds of viruses and malware. IMO market share has little to nothing to do with the "targetability" of an OS
There can be some details that can affect it besides market share (i.e specific target), but generally speaking, market share comes first from everything I've observed (as well as taught back in what now seems like the dinosaur age
).As per OS9's malware situation, I'll take your word on all of this, because I didn't follow Mac's OS's before the Intel switch. But how did it compare to Windows?
There can be some details that can affect it besides market share (i.e specific target), but generally speaking, market share comes first from everything I've observed (as well as taught back in what now seems like the dinosaur age
As per OS9's malware situation, I'll take your word on all of this, because I didn't follow Mac's OS's before the Intel switch. But how did it compare to Windows?
There have been many threads about this and few people have given very good reasons why the market share doesn't really affect this. If you make a virus for Windows, it will be one among the millions and will probably never gain any credit. However, since there are zero widespread viruses for current version of OS X, making one would definitely gain you credit in the hacker world and you most likely would end up in headlines of tech sites (such as MR). Plus, Macs have no virus protection so that virus could spread pretty easily as most Macs would be vulnerable and it might take Apple months to fill the hole.
Note that I am talking about a virus here, not trojan.
All true, but the possibility to come up with a virus for Unix is quite low. Keep in mind that Unix has been around for decades without major security breaches.
That being said, it certainly isn't impossible, but vulnerability of OS X is far lower than the one of Windows.
Making a virus is primary about market penetration as a virus is supposed to do stuff (such like creating a bot net for DoS attacks) and with greater market share, the changes of succeeding are higher. The times where viruses delete your data or stuff like that are definitely over. Today they are after bigger things.
I know and UNIX is probably the main reason why there are no viruses for OS X.
Making a virus is primary about market penetration as a virus is supposed to do stuff (such like creating a bot net for DoS attacks) and with greater market share, the changes of succeeding are higher. The times where viruses delete your data or stuff like that are definitely over. Today they are after bigger things.
I think making viruses is pretty much the same as making any software. We still have lots of 3rd party software for OS X, although there is the UNIX factor in viruses. While the Mac market share is pretty low, Apple still sells what, 3-4 million Macs each quarter? In one year, that means 12-16 million Macs and 99% has no virus protection at all. I would say that is hell of a market
There was this guy who spent months jailbreaking the PS3 and I think it was never even released (he might have done a deal with Sony so probably got some money though). The point is, some people do it just for fun and getting famous, not necessarily to get the most money out of it (though most probably do but even then, you would have a pretty good chance with OS X virus). Sure, the market share has some impact but it's not the main reason why OS X is virus-free. I used to think the market share was the main reason but those threads have made me think otherwise. Of course, nanofrog probably has some killer counterpoints like usual
Last edited:
If a few did get infected I don't think it would spread very fast or might even fizzle out.
For a virus to do any real damage it needs the users permission or password to do so. I suppose it could trick a user to gain assess, but to me that would be more of a form of phishing.
In Linux systems even if they get infected, it might wipe out the user account, but leave the rest of the system uneffected in some cases.
Those 3 criteria apply to imacs as well, so why aren't the imacs ridiculously overpriced?
The issue is that the Mac Pros seem to be overpriced at a much higher ratio than any of Apple's other products.
You've hit the one area that determines the entire point; the author's motives. If they're after massive damage (i.e. DoS, and this has a financial implications as well; think of various stock markets if they were successfully attacked) or profit, going for the largest market share increases the odds of accomplishing their goals.
For those that are in it for technical proficiency, fame, ..., or even espionage on a specific system (stuck hacking whatever OS said system uses), they may go for the more challenging direction, and that may not be the OS with the largest market share. But this seems far rarer to me in terms of shear volume from what I've read and heard of over the years.
Granted, UNIX should be harder to crack, but not impossible (can't think of a Linux implementation that's EAL 7; Red Hat and IBM are only EAL 4 last I checked).
This is how I see it; money or devastation (such as attacks on infrastructure and financial systems = cyber warfare, which is on the extreme side).Making a virus is primary about market penetration as a virus is supposed to do stuff (such like creating a bot net for DoS attacks) and with greater market share, the changes of succeeding are higher. Today they are after bigger things.
See above.Of course, nanofrog probably has some killer counterpoints like usual
Three things.
First, Dell doesn't sell UNIX workstations, they sell Windows workstations, they sell pre-installed Linux, but they're not selling UNIX workstations in the traditional sense of, "they built the OS, they support the OS fully" UNIX workstation. (Snooping around, I don't think HP sells UNIX workstations anymore, however, HP's selling Windows 7 workstations about $300 higher than a similar configured OSX machine).
Second, these machines are targeted at professionals, hence, "Pro." What's the total end of the year TCO support costs of a OSX machine versus Windows 7? Leaving aside viruses, and malware, OSX doesn't break suddenly the same that the Windows NT family does(And still continues to, to this day; the windows driver model is a complete joke). For instance the TCP/IP stack doesn't randomly eat itself to the point where you need to rebuild the whole damned thing, nor does the filesystem suddenly decide to completely barf because you looked at it wrong(Does NTFS' journaling still suck compared to HFS+ and ext3?). I'm guessing the support TCO on an OSX machine is going to be much lower even if you factor out malware/viruses.
Third, Final Cut Pro, Logic and Aperture only run on OSX(Although Aperture doesn't have the same foothold Logic and FCP do), and to many users, that's worth it enough right there. John Gruber and Dan Benjamin are suggesting that iMacs are getting powerful enough that this might not be so much a selling point for Pros anymore, but if you've got dozens of audio and video tracks each with CPU intensive filters, transitions and effects, the Core-i7 might cry where a Xeon will fly.
First, Dell doesn't sell UNIX workstations, they sell Windows workstations, they sell pre-installed Linux, but they're not selling UNIX workstations in the traditional sense of, "they built the OS, they support the OS fully" UNIX workstation. (Snooping around, I don't think HP sells UNIX workstations anymore, however, HP's selling Windows 7 workstations about $300 higher than a similar configured OSX machine).
Second, these machines are targeted at professionals, hence, "Pro." What's the total end of the year TCO support costs of a OSX machine versus Windows 7? Leaving aside viruses, and malware, OSX doesn't break suddenly the same that the Windows NT family does(And still continues to, to this day; the windows driver model is a complete joke). For instance the TCP/IP stack doesn't randomly eat itself to the point where you need to rebuild the whole damned thing, nor does the filesystem suddenly decide to completely barf because you looked at it wrong(Does NTFS' journaling still suck compared to HFS+ and ext3?). I'm guessing the support TCO on an OSX machine is going to be much lower even if you factor out malware/viruses.
Third, Final Cut Pro, Logic and Aperture only run on OSX(Although Aperture doesn't have the same foothold Logic and FCP do), and to many users, that's worth it enough right there. John Gruber and Dan Benjamin are suggesting that iMacs are getting powerful enough that this might not be so much a selling point for Pros anymore, but if you've got dozens of audio and video tracks each with CPU intensive filters, transitions and effects, the Core-i7 might cry where a Xeon will fly.
However powerful the iMac gets, they cant replace the Mac Pro for professional audio and video work. I mean I have a BlackMagic card and a Audio Interface card in my Mac Pro - where would I put them in an iMac? And I have used more than 3 screens on occasion (3 Monitors and a TV via HDMI on a second graphics card), which is something else the iMac can't do. I bought a Mac Pro not necessarily for the CPU power, although thats nice, but because I need slots to add features to my Mac. (No iMac has 3 PCI Express slots, and neither will it in that form factor).