There’s been a lot of new stuff for me to discuss since the last time I looked in here. It’ll take me a while, but I’ll get started with this post.
I wasn’t saying that rebates aren’t valid in your one example, I’m saying rebates aren’t valid in a BENCHMARK prices. You see, not everywhere has the same rebates, some places may not even have rebates, so picking a system with a ‘Free’ RAM upgrade and a ‘Free’ printer and using it as a norm will flaw any and all comparisons.
It’s not beside the point if most PC consumers cannot build their own systems. ANYBODY can get a custom built PC without having to touch a single computer component, and they can get a custom built PC in nearly any price range they are willing to spend. There is a large market for custom PC’s, and I would not be surprised if there are more custom PC’s than there are Macs.
I don’t think you quite understand. A PC is customizable. A Mac is not. You may upgrade a Mac, but you cannot build a brand new one of your own. You are also more limited in what hardware will work in a Mac. So, while a Mac has limited upgradability, a PC is completely customizable.
While it’s nice that YOU might want to have a DVD-RAM drive, the fact is the majority of consumers do not. Hence, there is not a large market for them (Hell, I don’t even think there is a standard format for DVD burning, is there?). And since we’re trying for “comparable” here, I guess it is impossible - there are too many different factors. There is always something the Mac could have that the PC might not, so you can claim those PC’s aren’t comparable. However, that same PC could have many options that the Mac can’t have, so PC users can claim that your Mac isn’t comparable to the PC. See what I mean?
Average price spent per PC and the average cost of available PCs are two COMPLETELY different lines of statistical reasoning.
Oh, and one thing…PC does not equal “Wintel”. AMD processors are more powerful than Intel processors, Linux is more stable than Windows…I hope you get my point.
If you’re trying to argue MacOS vs. Win98, MacOS is probably better. If you’re arguing MacOS vs. Win2k, I’d put my money on Win2k. In a year or so, we’ll see about arguing WinXP vs. OS X.
I have seen the cites (all on Pro-Mac sites, if I recall…) I can look them up (eventually.) But Joey cites his own experience, which I find verrrry interesting. I mean, he has worked in a professional setting, and he’s seen this with his own eyes. Has anyone seen the opposite happen? Anyone witness a drop in IT help when a company switched to PCs? I mean, of all the claims being exchanged back and forth here, I can’t recall I’ve ever heard anyone claim that when an all-Mac business switched to PC, their need for IT help dropped. But I’ve heard the opposite claim made many times, from different sources.
And while I hear that Win2K is pretty stable, how is it for an easy and friendly UI? Is installing hardware as easy as it is with a Mac? So much of my gripe about Windows (now, I’m not saying I hate it, mind) is that the UI is irritating and clunky at times. Is Win2K dramatically different from Win98 in this respect?
Win2k is not dramatically different, but it does have differences. While it probably isn’t as ‘easy’ and ‘intuitive’ as you would probably like, I know many Windows power users who much prefer some of the more subtle changes.
Adding hardware is also a little easier (for example, when installing hardware, it can actually locate drivers automatically on the CD.)
While it’s probably not enough to make you suddenly prefer PC’s over Mac, it does fix a lot of the stability issues and some minor UI quirks that have been complained about. This is one reason why I dislike the term “Wintel”. It’s a very innaccurate term.
As far as everyday use, Windows 2000 isn’t really different from Windows 98, except it doesn’t crash nearly as much.
Adding hardware is pretty much the same. I’ve never really used Win98 or NT4, but Win2K is a lot better with hardware than Win95 was. It occasionally won’t detect my external modem, but I can uninstall and reinstall the modem driver with a few clicks.
The main problem is that there aren’t any Win2K drivers available for many older devices. I never got my old Voodoo2 to work, and my parallel port CD-R and webcam were iffy.
I find it interesting as well. Was that the last company to completely use Macs or what? (Kidding! Humor!)
Seriously though, I can’t answer this question. However, I can provide some possibilities.
It depends a lot on the OS. I know some companies are still using Windows 3.11. I know some companies (hell, even my school) that use Win95 (Version A or B). For example, my school uses Win95 on the client on the two older computer labs. These computers are horribly managed and the systems are in pathetic shape. However, the new computer lab with clients running Win2k has not experienced a single crash or subnet problem. So, the OS used predominantly in a network is one factor.
Another factor is the competence of the IT personnel. There is a severe lack of trained IT personnel that some companies will quite literally hire the first person who applies with any kind of computer experience. When these companies keep having problems, they hire more IT personnel, and the problems still don’t get fixed in time.
An offshoot of this problem is one my InfoTech 2 teacher at school has had to deal with. Sometimes an IT department is so horribly staffed that they start having to fix problems caused by the IT staff!
Now, while none of these actually answer the question, I think it helps show that it’s not necessarily because the computers have been switched to PC (Although I will grant that poorly maintained PC’s will probably ‘break’ so to speak faster than a similarly maintained Mac will).
Well, sure. I worked for 5 years in computer support at the local medical school. I was hired as the “Mac guy” at a facility of around 3000 computers, perhaps 700 of which were Macs. I taught myself how to troubleshoot and repair Windows PCs one year because I had to keep busy; the Macs just weren’t breaking all that much. So, for 700 Macs, I was the sole tech support guy, and I was a half-timer. By contrast, the PC folks had three full-timers and two half-time student assistants, plus me.
Yes, we were woefully understaffed; I understand that the preferred ratio of computers to techs is around 50:1, and you’re pushing it at 100:1. We scraped by with ratios of roughly 500:1 on the PC side and 1400:1 on the Mac side.
I see your point, though I’m not sure simply ignoring them is the right solution, from a benchmark perspective. I think you need to somehow normalize them. On the other hand, as I said, in general there are a lot more rebates offered for PC systems than Macs, so maybe it’s in the best interest of my argument to rule them out. [wink]
OK, but you have to change your rhetoric from “PCs are cheaper than Macs” to “You can build a PC from scratch cheaper than a Mac”.
I understand. The point I was making is that the Mac may not be AS customizable, but it is customizable (and upgradable).
Sorry, I find that statement just a tad bit strong. There are upgrades and customizations that you can do on the Mac that are simply not possible on a PC. Also, there are customizations that you cannot do on any computer because of architectural constraints. I think you should replace “completely customizable” with “more customizable”
[quote]
Hell, I don’t even think there is a standard format for DVD burning, is there?
Yes. DVD Multi.
Yes, I tried to make that point earlier, but I think it was lost in the flames…
I think your argument all along should have been that the PC platform allows for much more flexibility and customizability, thereby allowing consumers to make choices for an optimally priced configuration. I do not disagree with this. Though I do point out that most consumers simply buy the configuration that the seller has determined to be the optimum and thus suffer from the same potential problem - paying for features that they don’t need… then on the other hand, most consumers are not particularly adept at planning for the future. I know several people who saved a few bucks when they bought their computers by leaving off the NIC - only to have to spend more to get a new NIC when they installed cable or DSL modems. Likewise I know a few that regretted their choice to get smaller hard disks or less RAM.
Please elaborate. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
Granted and I admit that I have been sloppy in my use of the term Wintel to include other-than Intel processors, though I have not been including linux based OSes.
yosemitebabe:
I may be talking out of my butt here - since I’ve not used Win2K yet myself, but there are a bunch of people at my site who are using it. Their claim is that it’s not significantly different than NT. However, I find NT better and much more stable than Win98, so if their assessment is correct (that Win2k is approximately equal to WinNT) then I think PC consumers are going to be pleased.
For a Mac person using WinNT (and Win2K, I assume), I think you’ll still find it pretty “clunky” and “irritating”.
Monster:
For what? User friendliness? Performance? Stability?
Predominantly WinNT with a gradual conversion to Win2K.
Clearly a huge part of the problem, but it reinforces the point that it takes more technical savvy to maintain PCs than Macs.
Bingo, once again.
There’s another big factor. Because there are so many stability issues with the software and compatibility issues with both hardware and software, our IT department locks the user out from making changes. In other words, users are not given administrator privledges on their own machines because they are deemed to be too dangerous. The IT department did not make this transition arbitrarily - they found, through experience, that users would tend to break their configurations too frequently, installing software or inadvertently messing with other parts of the OS. The consequence of this is that our IT department spends a lot of time installing things and tweaking things that a reasonably competent individual could do themselves.
Another consequence of this is that the IT deaprtment has to spend some time figuring out which applications don’t play nicely together, in advance, so that they can try to prevent conflicts. If I need an application that no one else is currently using, it might take three or four months before that application will get installed, as it goes through it’s checkout process.
Don’t get me wrong, we have more than our share of hardware problems. I’ve had several PCs “in the shop” multiple times over the last several years with hardware failures (one of them was sent back to the manufacturer and replaced). I contrast that with twice as many Macs that I’ve used over the same time period that have never had a hardware problem. I even have a 7 or 8 year old LCII that has never had a hardware problem and is still running strong. It has limited usefulness because of it’s memory limitations, but there a few games that the kids play on it that don’t work on PowerPCs and it works just find as a MIDI controller, which is what I use it for.
There are other things that occupy our IT folks time, as well. Coffee breaks, cigarette breaks, socializing, surfing the web, etc… In fairness, the Mac admins used to do this too, but in fairness they had the time…
I also want to point out another factor in Macintosh hardware stability (an often overlooked one). Many modern Macs don’t need fans. Most users only think of the noise implications of this… and I do have to admit that I’m sometimes envious of my kids’ iMac and it’s dead silent operation. However, there’s another piece of the equation. They don’t need fans because they don’t generate as much heat. They don’t generate as much heat because they use less power. They use less power because they are more efficient. In electronic systems poor efficiency, higher power consumption, and heat are killers. Also, an ancillery benefit - fans pull in dust and lint from the air, this builds up on the components and connectors causing them to fail (due to poor heat conductivity, electrostatic buildups, and more). Convection cooling dramatically reduces the amout of dust and lint in a computer system.
I call your bluff, sir. What customizations might these be?
I would suspect that the lower clock speed and integrated devices are bigger factors. A single board with sound, network, and graphics is going to use less power than a motherboard and separate PCI cards, especially when the integrated hardware is less complex.
For example, before installing a GeForce card, you’re recommended to have at least a 250-300W power supply… not because the card is inefficient, but because it’s blazing fast. Compare that to a cheap ATI chip that can just be slapped on the motherboard.
My K6/233 system ran for months with a broken CPU fan that turned so slow I could watch it move. (Of course, it wasn’t very stable.) But meanwhile, my Athlon/1GHz system will burn out in a matter of seconds without this monstrosity. Speed = heat.
I don’t know about yours, but my fans blow outward. I wouldn’t mind a cite showing that air circulation is a significant contributor to hardware failure.
Well, the most obvious ones would be the Mac G3/G4 multiprocessor PCI cards. There are also a number of QuickDraw3D accelerators. There’s the AirPort PCMCIA card for notebooks (takes advantage of the built-in antennas). There are a few PCI cards for digital recording. Oh yeah, let’s not forget those Pentium coprocessor cards that let you run WindowsOS in a MacOS window… I’m sure there are other examples, these are just the ones that popped into my head.
These are contributing factors to the lower power consumption.
It doesn’t matter which way the air flows (actually I’ve seen studies that suggest it’s slightly better to blow air in). Regardless, the air has to get sucked in from somewhere and the dust and lint comes in with it. The real culprit is a phenomenon known as laminate air flow. This creates a static charge across your vents, motherboard, and components. You see the effects of laminate air flow all the time - check out the dust buildup around AC and heating vents, bathroom vents, ceiling fans, etc…The static charge acts like a magnet for dust and lint. Lower air flows, such as with convection, reduce the charge (and therefore the dust buildup) dramatically.
It’s conventional wisdom for all electronic systems, but here are a few computer specific cites (since you asked):
You are going to need more IT people whenever you change platforms, that’s common sense. I’m sure if the company I worked for decided to switch from NT to MacOS we would need a lot more IT people to handle the change. I’ve never heard of a company switching from PC to Mac, though…
Why? I mean, I can see there being a brief transition period, when people are getting adjusted… But after a while, things should level out. Right? So why don’t they, when a place switches to PC from Mac?
I only read the opening question and post and that’s what I’m replying to. When I attended a small computer college, we had about 200 computers, half of them were PCs [personal computers], and the other half were Macs [Macintoshes]. To clarify the main difference between them, the computer professors said that the PCs are basicly made for a business environment to serve business functions and a Mac is geared towards serving the needs of artists and graphic designers. When I read your opening question, I had the feeling that maybe this was the answer that you were looking for. I hope that my general answer solves your inquiry.
I don’t think you’re following. If a company needs a certain amount of IT help for one platform, and IF that company changes platforms, why should (after the dust settles) there be any need for more IT help with the new platform? If (as some apparently want to claim) that PCs and Macs are equally easy to maintain, why would the need for IT people change from one platform to the other? There’s (apparently) no difference, right? So please explain why the change in platform would automatically result in a long term and/or permanent need for more IT staff.
I could see a company needing more IT help in the beginning of a transition, when people are getting set up and used to the change. But after a while, things should level off. And the IT help should return to what it was before the change. Right? If it doesn’t, that means (to many of us, anyway) that something is different - and more difficult about the new platform.
Well, actually… My company started out with PCs. Many of the PC admins were given new jobs when we switched to Macs. This, of course, was back in the days of DOS, so I’m not sure how relevant it is.
Well, let’s see. PC’s already have multiprocessor motherboards that you can upgrade to. You can get dual processor motherboards for as low as $100. You can get quad boards, but those are outrageously expensive (They’re for PIII Xeon chips, with Ultra160 scsi controllers and all that nifty server stuff…but for about $2k). BTW, how much do the G3/G4 multiprocessor cards cost?.
I’m not sure what the QuickDraw3D accelerators are, so I can’t come up with a PC equivilent.
PC Laptops have wireless PCMCIA cards, some with antennas on them, others that use antennas built into the laptop (I’ve seen Sony models with antennas).
PC’s have PCI digital recording cards as well, for audio and video, or both.
The only thing I don’t think a PC has is a G3/G4 coprocessor card, and that has to do with Apple’s proprietary nature. Apple doesn’t permit any company to use it’s computer technology unless it’s for certified Apple products.
Well I meant G3 or G4 multiprocessor boards to run on a PC…
It’s just as well, since I may have to retract that one. QuickDraw3D is Apple’s native 3D rendering and modeling library. Apple did port this to Windows, but I erroneously assumed that there were no PCI accelerators. However, I now believe that the ATI RAVE 3D PCI card for Windows does some level of QuickDraw3D acceleration… I haven’t been able to confirm this, but I’m not confident enough to say Windows DOES NOT have an equivalent.
I stand corrected. I have only seen the kludgy ones with “out-board” antennas.
Sorry, I didn’t make that point very well. There are certainly a number of sound capture and DSP manipulation cards available for Windows, there are specific ones that only support Macintosh (and likewise others that only support Windows). The lack of portability tends to be driven more by the software than the PCI/hardware requirements, however if you’re looking for specific features, DSP filters, etc. you could be constrained to one platform or another. I was going to mention the MOTU PCI 324, specifically, however I just found out that it now supports Windows (with a limited software capability). For the longest time it was Mac-only.
Again, you miss my point. I was suggesting that there are no PC cards designed to run PC emulation in a PC window… Possibly pointless, but I was getting silly by that point.
After I went to bed I thought of another class of hardware peripherals that used to be exclusive to the Mac (and still are technically). These are the ADB devices and dongles… though today, similar capabilities are available via USB, so it’s somewhat moot.
(Kidding! Humor!)