[quote] The irony is that Apple used to make the same claim… i.e. that their costs were higher because their lowest performance machines were higher than the competition…
[quote]
No it’s not. I said “both these systems are in the higher-end of the value PC”, which means that you can get lower prices than the PC’s I provided. However, you would be hard pressed to get a Mac much cheaper. The Mac argument was “The Mac may be more expensive, but the extra cost is worth it for the performance”. I merely point out that a PC could be purchased at lower prices than a Mac with higher all-around performance levels.
Also, you must note that you can build your own budget (or performance) PC for even less. I’ve noticed PC manufacturers way overprice RAM and hard drives, for example. I could go out right now (well, if I had the money and inclination to do so) and build a computer, complete with sound and a monitor and other accessories, for roughly $600.
Just reviewing your system choices in a little more detail and I guess I have to cry foul… Neither the Dell or the Gateway appear to have DVD writers. The Compaq configuration looks like a fair competitor, though.
On my choice of P4 over P3 - as I understand it the P4 out performs the P3 at vector processing. Since we’re talking about desktop systems, I’m assuming that we’ll be doing a lot of graphics, sound, and video processing. That’s why I would also rule out the Celeron and Duron. The Athlon with 3DNow is, I think a suitable, or possibly desirable alternative to the P4.
Aside from the configuration I quoted, which incidentally came right off the front page of the MicroWarehouse web site, I seem to have no problem locating lower end PCs (650MHz Celerons, 700MHz Pentium IIIs, 750MHz Durons). I can only assume that either (1) you didn’t look very hard or (2) you didn’t like what you found - they were all more expensive than the iMac. Also, I note that neither of your “low end” configurations seemed to include a printer (I know - you can get ink jets for only about $70-$100 - but when we’re in this price range, details matter).
Don’t bother. As a computer engineer, I believe you. That seems, to me, to be beside the point. I have friends that can get me pre-production PowerPCs that will blow the socks off of anything on the market. I have the knowledge and ability to buy a lower end Macintosh, overclock the bus, upgrade the processor, and maybe a few other tricks to yield a machine that is higher in performance and lower price than some of the systems we’ve been quoting. Is this a meaningful test? I don’t think so. I only care about mainstream systems that one could expect a reasonable level of support for (given my luck with PC hardware, I’m gonna need a lot of support).
Also, I don’t seem to be making my argument clear - since everyone keeps telling me that I was suggesting that Macs are cheaper than PCs. Maybe I need to try one more time… The point I was making is that SOME comparable PCs are higher in price than their Mac counterparts. Clearly SOME comparable PCs are lower in price. We have no idea what the actual AVERAGE is, but it seems to be at least about equal and possibly a wee bit higher than the Mac. Since we are comparing dozens of PC configurations against any one given Macintosh configuration, and since we can assume that not every PC buyer will choose the absolute lowest cost PC configuration, then we can assume that the AVERAGE PC buyer pays about the same or more than the average Mac buyer.
yosemitebabe:
Out of the mouths of babes… One of the reasons that I don’t get too hung up on processor speeds is that all of the standard benchmarks are biased! A meaningful benchmark, for me, would measure the improvement to my productivity. I could care less if processor A is faster than processor B or bus X is faster than bus Y. In the end, I only care what saves me time. Certainly processor speeds have some impact, but I suspect the IMPACT is actually diminishing with increases in processor speed. Our computers spend a lot of time waiting for us to tell them what to do. I’ve yet to see a useful benchmark for measuring the impact to my performance (or some typical user)… Actually the BYTEMark used to come pretty close and, for a time, was the accepted benchmark by most PC advocates… that is, until the Macs started winning the BYTEMark wars - then suddenly it was inadequate…
Not at all. Check out mysimon. On the other hand, this tangent is mostly pointless. Firstly, if you’re in the market for bargain basement prices, then you’re not very likely to be concerned with performance differences of this order. Secondly, I would tend to recommend (and have) a Wintel computer for this low end space. While I still believe the Mac is easier to use for newbies and is more robust, the availability of cheap Windows software and games (and let’s face it, that’s a big factor for many first-time computer buyers) outweigh the benefits of the Mac platform. Most of these buyers are either going to get bored with their new toy very fast or want to upgrade to a higher performance model… either way, they are better off spending the absolute lowest number of dollars for this throwaway.
Sorry, I misunderstood. That’s what I thought you were trying to say about your choices.
Likewise, I merely point out that a PC COULD be purchased at HIGHER prices than a Mac with LOWER all-round performance levels. [wink]
Ok, so your Mac beats two of my PC configurations in that it has DVD-RAM drive. Darn. My PC’s only have better graphics, better sound cards and systems, etc.
Oh, and I’d pit that Compaq against your Mac, and I think it could perform just as well as it.
I think you’re mistaken about something. The Duron processor will outperform most PIII’s at vector processing. Why would you rule it out? Because you don’t want to take into consideration that there are high performance PC processors for far less than any Mac processor out there?
And considering that the Athlon has beaten the P4 in benchmarks, I would say that it is probably equal in comparison to a G4.
You are neglecting the fact that these are REFURBISHED systems (I was looking at NEW systems). Also of note, MicroWarehouse has nearly EVERY item marked higher in price than comparable products in retail stores and in many other online retailers. Hardly a credible source to compare prices with.
Well, I must “cry foul”, as you seem to be neglecting the little “*After rebate” for both the ‘free’ printer ($69 value, not $100) AND the ‘free’ RAM (Which you must also pay a $30 installation fee to get). Also, you neglect to mention that the ‘free’ (*after rebate) printer is a LIMITED time offer. It’s not permanent, and so is not really a valid claim in the general argument that “PC’s are cheaper than Macs”.
You seem to be quick to put dismiss points when they go against your opinion. The customizability feature of PC’s are one of the primary benefits of having a PC, so in what way is it beside the point?
This is beside the point, because it gives absolutely NO advantage to the Mac because PC users could do the same thing. On the other hand, dismissing a PC’s customizability is dismissing a primary benefit of having a PC.
How is getting a custom built PC not “mainstream”? Because not everybody gets custom built PC’s? Well, I can guarantee you that there are just as many custom-built PC’s as there are Macs out there. So, would this make Macs not “mainstream”?
Also, if you only care about “mainstream” systems, then why do you care about DVD-Ram drives? Those aren’t mainstream.
If you can custom build your own system, you should have reasonable enough knowledge to not need a lot of support. If someone else builds you a custom PC, don’t you think you can expect a reasonable level of support from them? Or is a reasonable level of support for you someone who is an official employee of a big company? From my personal experience and discussions with friends, people who build their own machines often have more knowledge than tech support people from PC manufacturers.
You haven’t established AT ALL that the average cost of PC’s is equal to or higher than the cost of Macs. I feel I have proved adequately to the contrary. And as for MicroWarehouse, like I said, nearly every one of their products listed is higher in cost than most other retailers.
Your claim was “The Mac is usually about 5-10% lower cost and actually, typically has more features (bigger hard disk, DVD, etc.).”. I disproved that. Not only were the PC systems I showed MORE than 10% cheaper, they also had not more, but rather SUPERIOR features to the Mac (with the arguable exception of DVD-RAM drive, but those aren’t mainstream, so they don’t matter).
Prove it.
Computer speed benchmarks and productivity are very different. You see, speed benchmarks are fact, whereas productivity levels are quite subjective.
I checked out mysimon. The cheapest iMac I found was $800. You call that much cheaper?
How is this tangent pointless? You’re saying Macs are cheaper, I say they’re not. You provide your “proof”, then I debunk your proof. Then you say the tangent is pointless?
You’re saying that low-cost PC’s are simply “throwaway” computers?? Again, you neglect that these “throwaway” PC’s often have better hardware than the iMac, yet the cheaper PC’s are throwaway??
Yeah, if you shop like my dad and don’t try to find reasonable prices.
Do you know what “superficial” means? A two-inch-thick computer will run in exactly the same manner as a one-inch-thick computer. Or are you suggesting that a 700-Mhz P-III will run at, say, 800-Mhz if the computer surrounding it becomes thinner? Or that a 20-GB hard drive can magically hold 30-GB if it’s placed in a slimtop?
Of course the consumer will pay for miniaturization. That doesn’t mean he should. Unless someone is very stupid, they’re going to be more concerned about what they have to sacrifice for that smaller size. If you’re strapped for cash, you’re going to want a POWERFUL laptop, not a pretty thin one.
In addition, I would like to see some evidence that the casing of the G4 laptop is significantly more powerful than the casing on, say, a Dell or Gateway. Just because it’s metallic and shiny (you’re attracted to pretty shiny things, aren’t you, Joey?) that doesn’t mean it’s tougher.
You’re right, and I apologize. But the fact remains that it appears that you went out of your way to find one of the most expensive PC laptops on the market, which was the point of my comment.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you say that “The Mac is usually about 5-10% lower cost”?
I guess “lower cost” means “more expensive” in your world.
Except as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, you CAN’T directly compare PC’s and Mac’s “apple-to-apple”. One can only make as close an approximation as possible. And the closest approximations - that is, compensating for certain shortcomings, such as the lack of DVD-RAM drives, with MUCH better graphics and sound - show that PC’s are a better deal than a comparable Mac.
I don’t see what’s so difficult about that notion.
Actually, I didn’t say it. Not originally. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that whenever a Mac afficionado claims that their preferred computers are cheaper, and are subsequently proved wrong, they always ditch the simple “cost” argument and go back to the “but it’s a better machine” argument.
This is a debating fallacy because nobody is claiming that they’re not better machines… the claim was that PC’s are cheaper. Period.
You didn’t make yourself clear originally, and the clarification is muchly appreciated. I’ve long said that one of the biggest reasons that keeps me away from buying a Mac is my lack of cash. I never said that they’re INFERIOR, just more expensive.
I don’t know how many of the PC vs. Mac debates you’ve seen, but I’ve often compared PC’s to a Ford and Mac’s to a Mercedes. I think the comparison is accurate.
JoeyBlades, you seem to have forgotten what your original statement was regarding prices between comparable Macs and PCs. Allow me to refresh your memory.
I propose that the Information Technology departments of most companies are typically going to purchase greater numbers of desktop machines than laptops, because desktops are cheaper and not everyone needs a laptop to do their job. This being the case, your statement implies that Macs are cheaper than PCs in general.
When people started refuting this claim, you gave an example of a lightweight Mac notebook that was significantly cheaper than a similarly equipped PC notebook. Monster104 countered with a similarly equipped but heavier PC laptop that cost the same as your Mac notebook, and also showed examples of desktop PCs that cost less than their desktop Mac counterparts. When confronted with this evidence, you tried to claim first that your original statement regarded lightweight notebooks only, then that your statement was that some Macs cost more, and some less than their PC counterparts. Then you went back to your original claim that Macs are cheaper than PCs generally, but added that this whole argument is irrelevant.
Here are some examples:
Look at your original statement. You said that Macs are usually 5-10% cheaper than equivalent PCs, and typically come with more or better features. First of all, if a Mac has better features than a PC it’s not an equivalent machine, but a better one. Therefore your original statement actually implies that a Mac is usually significantly cheaper than an equivalent PC.
This second quote contradicts the first one. You certainly did not assert that “some Macs are cheaper than some PCs”, but that “the Mac is usually about 5-10% lower cost” - in other words, that most Macs are cheaper than most PCs. This quote also contradicts itself. The statement “Macs are priced about the same or less than average PCs” is just another way of saying “Macs are cheaper.” It is not another way of saying “some Macs are cheaper than some PCs”, which doesn’t really mean anything.
Here you try to invalidate Monster104’s laptop:
As others have pointed out, the physical size and appearance of a laptop are not relevant to its capabilities. Look back at your original quote again, and at my following comments. Your original statement implies that you are talking about desktops anyway. You didn’t say anything about cosmetic attributes until after this example came up.
Here you make way too many assumptions:
You have no idea what average prices are, but you make assumptions. “The average PC buyer” is a rather vague notion, but you make assumptions about that as well. Assumptions are not proof. I’m not going to assume anything about what the average PC buyer pays compared to the average Mac buyer just because you do. Also see my comments on your second quote, as they apply to this one also.
You can’t argue a position effectively if you can’t even decide what your position is. Make up your mind. Furthermore, the question of whether Macs or PCs are cheaper in general is certainly relevant to this thread. Go look at the thread title, it’s “PC vs Mac Simply Explained”. Someone who wants to know the basics of the two platforms will be concerned with price, as will many other potential computer buyers.
The way I see it, you have two options. You can continue to attempt deflecting our arguments by claiming they are off target, when it is in fact you who are changing the subject. Or, you can admit that you either misspoke or were wrong. One choice will probably result in loss of credibility, while one will not.
In reverse order; I was NOT only looking at MicroWarehouse. I was also looking at other on-line stores and in fliers from my local Best Buy, Circuit City, Office Depot, Office Max, and CompUSA. None of the ones I mentioned indicated that they were refurbs.
What? Rebates aren’t valid? Money is money. Cost is cost. When I argue these cost issues with my buddies I let them throw rebates in my face (except MSN, AOL, Compuserv, etc.) and God knows, the Wintel world has a lot more rebates to play with than the Mac world… It’s not in the best interest of your argument to toss out rebates.
It’s beside the point because it’s outside the skill and knowlewdge level of most PC consumers. You, my friend, are an outlier - not the statistical norm.
You seem to think Macs are fixed entities. I’ve upgraded my graphics, RAM, hard disk, CPU, added USBs, mouse, and more on my Mac. I don’t see how your PC is any more beneficial due to it’s upgradability.
I care because I create a lot of videos of my kids and I would like to save them to DVD for archival and send them to friends and family. I don’t have this capability today, but it would certainly be desirable and this capability has me teetering on the edge of buying a new box, rather than upgrading my CPU again. On the other hand, the initial challenge was for “comparable” systems - that’s what I tried to establish.
As I’ve said before, try as I might, I just can’t build enough competence to sustain a custom built Wintel box and OS. Also, being able to do a thing is not the same thing as wanting to do a thing. When I was young and poor I used to work on my car a lot. I’m very competent with auto mechanics, yet these days I prefer to pay someone else to do it so that I can spend my time on something that is more valuable to me. Same thing with my computer. I’ve got three Macs (7 years old, 3 years old, and 1 year old). None of them have ever had hardware problems and the software and OS is easy for me to maintain (plus I can do it better than most ‘experts’). I’ve never needed any support, but if I did have a hardware problem I’d probably take it to a service center. Over the last 5 years, I’ve had 5 different PCs (3 Dells, an HP, and a Compaq). Every single one of them had to have work done on them at one time or another and one of them was so broken that Dell just sent us another one (after we paid a prorate). My current one is starting to flake out. I’m sure I could invest a lot of time and get to the level of competence required to sustain these systems, but frankly there’s other things I’d rather be doing instead.
I have no doubt about this, in fact, these days, when I have problems that seem to be related to software or the OS on my PCs, these are the individuals I seek out. However, of the hundreds of people I know who own PCs, there are only a small handful of build-it-themself-ers.
Agreed. To do that, we would need to know how many of each individual configuration was sold.
I disagree. You’ve identified some data points that are below the average. I’ve identified some data points that are above the line. We have not established where the line is. Therefore you cannot make the arbitrary claim that PCs are cheaper based on only a few data points.
Here’s an analogy. You go to your favorite grocery store and purchase a bag of groceries. Then you go to a competing grocery store and purchase the same items. You note that the bill from your favorite store is 10% lower. Do you think that you can make the sweeping claim that your store is always cheaper than the other store or that another individual, with different shopping needs, will find the same cost savings at your store?
I claimed that about a few specific configurations that my company was purchasing in the past. I was not making that claim about Mac and PC price/performance in general. You, SPOOFE, and Mr2001 seem to be the only ones here making general price/performance claims. I’m just trying to show you how your data is potentially misleading and that your claims may not, in actual fact, represent what really happens to PC consumers (in general).
The only proof that I feel I need to offer is the very fact that the benchmarks continue to evolve and are always contentious. Company A says “Our computer is fastest because it outperformed company B’s computer in the XStone benchmark”. Then company B says, “The XStone is not valid, you must use the YStone for a true comparison, and of course, our computer is faster in the YStone benchmark”.
I agree that they are different. I don’t agree that productivity benchmarks are necessarily subjective. I’ve seen a number of productivity benchmarks that are very scientific. The best way to measure productivity is to measure the quality, quantity, and pace of the output. In the end, I only care that the work I produce on my computer is correct, it’s all done, and it’s done as quickly as possible.
Another analogy. I had a friend that could type very fast. Incredibly fast. The only problem was that his output was full of typos. He used spellcheckers and proofreading techniques to go back and clean it all up. Meanwhile, the lady that sat in the cube next to him typed significantly slower. However, when she was done, she was done. She produced more pages of quality output in the same amount of time as the speedy typist. Moral of the story. Speed ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.
12.5% - that’s in the same range as the 10% you were talking about earlier. Also, when I checked mysimon I saw a couple of lower speed systems for about $650 - $700.
I’m saying that I find it pointless to argue that the low end Macs might be the same or cheaper (ON AVERAGE), since for low end configurations and new computer buyers I would tend to always recommend a PC.
The very fact that these high priced PCs are out there suggests that there’s a market to support them. You just want to dismiss them because YOU wouldn’t buy one.
SPOOFE:
I place a lot of value on the way my computer looks and how compact and lightweight it is. You can dismiss this as superficial, but I have news for you… the buying public, at large, is equally superficial.
Hey SPOOFE, I think you’re right! We need to start making our airplanes out of plastic. I’m sure they’ll be a lot more durable than these shiny metal ones… and yeah, I do like pretty shiny things, big deal. Not everyone in the universe is as cost conscious and practical as you. Otherwise there would be no BMWs, Cadillacs, Mustangs, and Jaguars… What a boring place this world would be if everyone drove Volkswagen Beetles. Hey I have no delusions, it was the pretty colors that drove so many new Mac owners to choose iMacs. It’s the nature of our species. Many business are predicated on the assumption that people will spend more money for ‘image’.
You’re wrong. Here’s what I said:
You guys keep trying to twist this into a “Macs are always 5-10% lower cost” claim. I did not and would not make that claim. My claim was regarding a few specific PC configurations. I’m just trying to shut down the counter argument that “PCs are always lower cost”.
I don’t think this has been demonstrated at all. First of all, the “deal” is the whole package. You have to include software; you have to include maintenance cost; you have to include training costs; you have to look at productivity savings; plus a whole lot of other costs and savings, as well. There are independent studies out there that compare the total cost of ownership between Wintel based machines and Macintoshes… but you won’t like what these studies have to say. Nor will you believe it - I’m sure you’d just dismiss it, which is why I didn’t bring it up before now. Nothing in this thread (or any other discussion I’ve seen on the subject) has shown “that PC’s are a better deal than a comparable Mac”.
That’s because you’ve closed your mind to the bigger picture. Maybe when you and your brother get a few more years under your belts you’ll realize that it’s not a simple equation that you can solve by plugging in the lowest cost PC you can find or build…
I know that. I was being intentionally disingenuous to be funny and to make a point.
sturmhauke:
A complete mischaracterization… but I’m getting used to it. When Monster came up with a cheaper laptop, I did NOT dismiss it. I congratulated him. I pointed out that they were really of different classes, but actually the only thing I dismissed were the differences (I quote):
and
EXACTLY!!! Likewise, it’s not valid to make assumptions about whether the average PC buyer spends less money than a Mac buyer for a comparable machine. You only reinforce my point!
Which is precisely why I’ve continued to try and make this point clear. If I thought it was completely irrelevant, I would have said so and dropped the subject. I’ve only characterized the parts where we seem to have no general disagreement as irrelevant to prevent tangental topics from confusing the issue.
Ahh… I don’t believe either is true. History on this board has shown that I freely admit when I misspeak, make poor assumptions, and am wrong. In this case, it’s a matter of words and assumptions being attributed to me that are not factual or misrepresentitive - you’ve done this yourself in your previous post.
Just because YOU don’t get my point, doesn’t mean it’s not valid.
Oh ouch! I guess I’ll just have to give in then. I wouldn’t want to lose credibility with this crowd…
Forget all this hardware talk…it’s beside the point. The Macs could be 50% more expensive, hell, maybe double or more…and the bottom line of the company would still be brighter, I’m guessing (depending on what his company does).
When you are talking about a professional setting like this, the reality is you are dealing with widely divergent levels of ability and expertise with computers. The least expensive option in this case is the one that isn’t going to keep costing you for years after you buy the machines. I don’t have the stats ready to site (and I’m not gonna go get 'em, because I don’t have the time or inclination, so if you want to tell me I’m full of it, feel free) but everything I’ve ever read that compares the two platforms shows that businesses that choose Mac save a FORTUNE in support, training, and repair costs.
Even our Wintel flag wavers here have conceded a few times that Macs are easier to use…and when your workforce can just sit down and within a few minutes just USE the computer, you’ve saved money. When there is a consistency across applications, so that new applications are not a ground-zero learning experience, and the learning curve is shorter and shorter for each successive application, you have saved money. When 85% of the problems, freezes or crashes the average Mac runs into is fixed by one of 3 or 4 simple keyboard combinations, you save money. And the more people in the company using the computers, learning the applications, dealing with the problems…the more money you save.
These factors certainly may not, do not apply, when we are discussing what Monster chooses for himself vs. what I choose for myself, and the cost…we are both extremely savvy computer users (I suspect he’s much more than savvy) and we aren’t spending a lot or any money on repairs and support. But Joey, you did a lousy job of bolstering your very own argument! Your original claim was easily backed up. The fact is, using Macs will lower the overall cost to your company a great deal more than 10%. Tell them to look at the IT department’s salary, the losses for downtime of the computers, the losses for the time spent training people… if they take ALL the costs into account, well, it’s no contest. (Unfortunately, most companies do not. They get sucked into the “Cheaper! More software!” bullshit that IT departments give them and fail to look beyond next week.)
IT departments have NO interest in bringing in Macs…it has the effect of turning them into Maytag repairmen. What they have to say should always be suspect.
Forget all this hardware talk…it’s beside the point. The Macs could be 50% more expensive, hell, maybe double or more…and the bottom line of the company would still be brighter, I’m guessing (depending on what his company does).
When you are talking about a professional setting like this, the reality is you are dealing with widely divergent levels of ability and expertise with computers. The least expensive option in this case is the one that isn’t going to keep costing you for years after you buy the machines. I don’t have the stats ready to site (and I’m not gonna go get 'em, because I don’t have the time or inclination, so if you want to tell me I’m full of it, feel free) but everything I’ve ever read that compares the two platforms shows that businesses that choose Mac save a FORTUNE in support, training, and repair costs.
Even our Wintel flag wavers here have conceded a few times that Macs are easier to use…and when your workforce can just sit down and within a few minutes just USE the computer, you’ve saved money. When there is a consistency across applications, so that new applications are not a ground-zero learning experience, and the learning curve is shorter and shorter for each successive application, you have saved money. When 85% of the problems, freezes or crashes the average Mac runs into is fixed by one of 3 or 4 simple keyboard combinations, you save money. And the more people in the company using the computers, learning the applications, dealing with the problems…the more money you save.
These factors certainly may not, do not apply, when we are discussing what Monster chooses for himself vs. what I choose for myself, and the cost…we are both extremely savvy computer users (I suspect he’s much more than savvy) and we aren’t spending a lot or any money on repairs and support. But Joey, you did a lousy job of bolstering your very own argument! Your original claim was easily backed up. The fact is, using Macs will lower the overall cost to your company a great deal more than 10%. Tell them to look at the IT department’s salary, the losses for downtime of the computers, the losses for the time spent training people… if they take ALL the costs into account, well, it’s no contest. (Unfortunately, most companies do not. They get sucked into the “Cheaper! More software!” bullshit that IT departments give them and fail to look beyond next week.)
IT departments have NO interest in bringing in Macs…it has the effect of turning them into Maytag repairmen. What they have to say should always be suspect.
Sorry, but this was not my original argument. I DO firmly believe this, but it’s very difficult to back up with empirical evidence, so I’ve tended to avoid this line of reasoning.
Anecdotal “evidence”: About a year after the big switch from Macs to PCs I noted that, while the number of workstations had only gone up about 5%, the number of support staff was 4X what it used to be. Worse yet, they were always backed up so systems were not getting the support they needed and work was not getting done. Now, 5 years later, the support staff is 8X what it used to be and the number of workstations has grown only about 15% (our IT staff is growing faster than the rest of the company) and still, there’s not enough people to be effective and so either they keep you waiting for days or weeks for support or we call in subcontractors to fill the gap. So I finally confronted the manager of the department, an old friend of mine, who just happened to play an instrumental role in the change. He made it clear to me that the change had absolutely nothing to do with software availability, equipment costs, productivity, or any of the other traditionally cited reasons. The cost to convert was incredible, particularly considering our huge software investment. The reason for the switch is best summed up by this phrase: Macintoshes build anarchies; unixes build confederacies; but PCs build empires.
Actually, there’s quite a bit. The stuff I read came from Apple, of course, but there was actual statisitcal evidence from very different companies proving this over and over again. Like I said, it’s out there to be found, I just don’t have the patience right now. Or the time, really. Maybe this weekend.
Hey, seems pretty damn clear to me!
Sounds cool, but I honestly have no clue what he’s trying to say here. Or you…could you clue me?
stoid
There are two such studies that I’ve seen Apple quote. Both of them independent, so they do not ‘specifically’ carry an Apple bias. One of them is called the GISTICS-ROI study. I don’t think it’s in the public domain - GISTICS sells this kind of information to companies who want to realize real productivity and profitability improvements. The initial study was kind of old, pre-Windows98 (I think), and I’m not sure if there has been an update. I can’t remember the other one, but I think it was conducted by a major university. I’ve seen a few other, similar studies. Usually, when these kinds of studies come out, you expect to see counter publications in favor of the other guy, but I never did see one that made the claim that Windows improved user productivity over Macintosh.
An anarchy is a form of government based on self-rule. Mac people tend to fend for themselves because they can - they tend to be self-ruled. A confederacy is a form of government organized around a number of small power groups working cooperatively. In large unix based businesses, you tend to find a number of unix admin groups, each working fairly autonomously, but with some level of cooperation. An empire, in this context, simply means a huge government. So what I’m trying to say is a similar point to what you finished with in your previous post. It’s not in the best interest of IT departments to support or recommend Macintoshes because it takes control away from the IT department and it tends to require much smaller organizations for support. Most managers would prefer to manage large organizations, rather than small ones - hence they tend to favor platforms that enable them to build empires.
I can’t imagine how they’d even try! I think the most they could say (falsely, but still) is that there is no difference… no one would believe for a second that Windows is better in this respect. (Note the eerie silence from the heretofore quick-on-the-draw Wintel defenders since I made this point this morning, for instance.
.
Hmm. Interesting. I would never have guessed that, seriously.
And in this instance, it seems really strange that a manager would wish to “manage” an organization that is losing productivity, frustrated, suffering downtime and bleeding money. That seems really odd. Unless a lean, mean, functioning machine makes them feel superfluous, which wouldn’t surprise me.
Then how come PC’s are more popular than Mac’s? Mac’s certainly look “prettier”.
Talk about your strawmen attacks. Are you suggesting that compressed, hardened plastic is a non-durable product? Titanium is strong, yes… but not remarkably so at the thicknesses in the Powerbook. Your comparison (and immature derision) of plastics to titanium casing (unnecessary and excessive… a mere product gimmick) aren’t warranted.
We’re not trying to twist it. You made the claim, without any modifiers aside from a vague reference to the configurations that your company has looked into. It should be obvious to you that this small example is hardly representative of the whole market, especially given the numerous examples that contradict your opinion.
In other words, “Oops, I guess I’m wrong… better try to weasel my way out of it!” The software in the online machines you’ve seen was included in the cost… most sites also included a 1-year maintenance warranty, also included in the cost. I would imagine that, if you really cared about accuracy, you’d have checked this out for yourself.
Beyond the included costs… I fail to see how you can possibly predict how much maintenance would be needed on a computer.
I don’t care what these studies have to say. I have my own brain, and my own experiences to draw upon. My experiences are plenty for me to make a decision.
Nice attack. You have nothing to make you think that I’d dismiss the studies.
And you accused me of dismissing information? Hypocrite.
And you accused… oh wait, I already used that line. :rolleyes:
Spoofe! Spoofy! My Spoofe-man! They’re just computers! I find this debate all very interesting, and I do care about it, but come on! None of us should be getting too hot under the collar about this issue.
I would be interested in finding someone who can counter the claim that Macs require less IT maintenence, and need less IT people. Or rather, that there is no difference in the need for IT help when a company switches over to PC.
Personally, I have no trouble believing the claim that Macs require less IT help. I just know from my own experience. I have my MSCE buddy to help me work on my PC, and to give me advice. I had him reformat and reinstall Windows for me. (He said my PC was a terrible mess.) But who does the reformatting and troubleshooting of my Mac? Me. I was scared at first, but with my Mac troubleshooting book in hand, I’ve done it.
Regarding the “pretty plastic” issue. I’ve heard this brought up before, I’ve heard the sneering “People who buy iMacs because they’re pretty…UGH.” And I have countered this attitude before with this question: Do you want a car that is shiny and with a pleasing shape, or do you want a car that is beige, and plain? As long as they both run OK, what’s wrong with liking the pretty one? Why can’t the consumer choose a computer that does what they want it to do, and is pleasing to the eye? Cars are like that. People take great care to choose the right color of car, some people can talk endlessly about the appearance of a car. I don’t see the same degree of contempt directed at people who carry on about cars. But all of a sudden, it’s this terrible, shallow thing to care about a computer’s appearance? After all, it’s something that becomes part of your decor, something that you have to look at every day. So why not make it attractive?
Sounds like a documentation problem… reinstalling Windows isn’t typically any harder than reinstalling MacOS. You do have to answer more questions, but that’s because you have more choices.
It’s true, maybe I shouldn’t be as paranoid about reinstalling Windows. But I’ve had some traumatic experiences with installing Windows, or just installing anything, so I am gun-shy. Right now I am having trouble with the CD-R drive on the PC, my virus software won’t work (I tried to update it, it just wouldn’t do it) and on and on. I don’t want to deal with it all. So guess what? I’m on the Mac.
I’ve had quite a few PCs in my day (including laptops) and each one has been troublesome. I’ve had three Macs (all bought off of eBay) and the trouble with them have been less. Not non-existant, but less. A LOT less. So, I have no trouble believing that Macs in a business environment would be less trouble as well.
(1) PCs were on the market first and therefore started out with more market share.
(2) PC weenies use propaganda and misinformation to convince new computer buyers that their floppy disks are gonna fall off if they buy Macs.
No, only that titanium is more durable, structurally more robust and therefore adds some additional value to the machine.
My claim was very specific. You heard what you expected to hear and attacked that. Then rather than pull up some examples from the past, I showed you a current example. I did not go out of my way to come up with a significantly more expensive PC - that just happened. On the other hand, technically, no on has bested the Titanium. Sure, Monster came up with one of slightly better performance, but it was not in the same class. I let it go before, but since you seem so insistent on beating this dead horse - I renew the challenge. Show me a comparable PC slim-line notebook for a better price. I’ll even let you do it in plastic, though I doubt you’ll find one because one of the reasons that both the Apple and the HP have metalic cases is because metal is stiffer and when you get that thin, you need additional structural strength.
First, you have a very different idea of “numerous examples” than I do. Also, some of these were not really “comparable”. I opted just to accept them at face value and not nitpick the details because I didn’t want to seem like… like… well, like you…
Second, and more importantly, the real point I’ve been trying to make: If I came up with just a few more examples of PCs more expensive than comparable Macs, would you change your mind??? No you’d come up with more examples that agree with your position. Then I’d come up with more to support mine. We COULD go back and forth for quite a long time, and quite possibly, in the end we’d find that the average price of a PC would beat the average price of a comparable Mac. On the other hand, there are a lot more PC variations out there - some of them cater to big businesses and therefore tend toward the more expensive (IBM, Compaq, HP, etc.). With the significantly more PCs to figure into the average, we might just find that the average pricing favors the Macintosh. Of course, we’d have to get some statistics about the numbers of each configuration were being bought to figure out the statistical average. And as long as we’re going to all this work, maybe we should track software costs, maintenance, training, etc… It’s impossible to know the answer, but I suspect that this fact will not stop you from spouting your opinions to anyone who will listen… and good for you, that most of the computer buying public are sheep and will hang on your every word.
That’s not the software I was talking about, though, again I will note that several of the systems that were quoted did NOT come with a comparable software bundle… I let it pass. The software that I was talking about is ALL of the software that a user will be using over the lifetime of that computer. I don’t pretend to have a generic formula - my point is that a smart consumer will evaluate their software needs, evaluate the software that they might choose on both platforms and make their decision considering the software costs. That, in fact, is exactly what I did many years ago and I continually re-evaluate this decision (on the outside chance that someday it will make good economic sense to change platforms).
That’s actually not so difficult. There are published studies that compare various PC manufacturers to each other. Also, as I said, in my company we used to be predominantly Mac based and I know that for every 100 Macs we had one person for suport (and the Mac support people were underloaded). Now we’re PC based and it takes about 8 support people for every 100 PCs (and the PC people are overloaded).
Incredible…
but immediately before that you wrote:
QED
No, actually, as I said before, I’ve let quite a fe things slide because I didn’t think it would serve a useful purpose to escalate this “hardware pissing war”, as yosemitebabe called it.
How could you possibly believe you have a grasp of the big picture when you clearly don’t have a clue about the other side of the argument. When you’ve used a Mac for as long as I’ve been using PCs (about 8 years) and have worked in environments with thousands of both PCs and Macs for as long as I have (about 18 years), THEN you will have earned the right to label me a hypocrite. In the mean time you’re just pissing all over yourself… and frankly, I find it simultaneously pathetic and funny.