Another possible reason is that MacOS can use the same hardware more efficiently, for some combination of the following:
[ol]
[li]Apple just has better developers.[/li][li]MacOS is optimized for one very limited range of hardware, while Windows and Linux have to work on millions of different system configurations.[/li][li]Microsoft cares much more about backwards compatibility, which imposes a lot of limitations on their software architecture. Apple can get away with just saying “sorry, as of the next release we don’t support this particular API call anymore, tough luck for anyone using old software” and make it the responsibility of vendors of third-party software to update their code.[/li][/ol]
The claim that MacOS gets more oomph out of the same hardware is a very common one; I don’t know from personal experience how true it is or, if it is true, which of the above three reasons is the main explanation.
Just pointing out that Macs run Windows just fine. I’m running Windows 8.1 Pro via Parallels Coherence, which means it’s seamlessly integrated into the Mac environment, and runs PC applications side by side with Mac applications.
Pertinent to this discussion, I configured my Mac Mini as a PC at HP.
Mini: $1700
PC: $1400
That’s a pretty significant difference for aesthetics and design and an operating system. To me, worth it. But the person poo-pooing the Mac’s cost is not the same person who would spend $1400 on a PC, either.
Actually I built a “hackintosh” on my windows PC, dual boot and it wasn’t hard. I’m not too computer literate. It only took about an hour of watching YouTube videos to get it onto my Windows PC.
Anyone interested can search YouTube for directions on how to do it.
Thanks for the replies. I am interested in a Apple, as a friend tells me that he doesn’t need a anti virus software on his Air mac.
It is true that Macs don’t get as many malware threats as Windows PC’s but one of the main reasons is that all Mac Operating Systems including OSX only make up a small percentage of all personal computers so they aren’t a good choice for anyone trying to propagate a mass attack. However, that does not mean that they are immune to malware attacks. They can and have happened. Someone could come up with an incredibly nasty virus or trojan tomorrow that exploits the fact that so many Mac users are unprotected. OSX runs on a variant of Unix underneath the hood which is one of the oldest and most stable general use operating systems around but it is still vulnerable and exploitable just like all general use operating systems are. The reason that Windows computers get threats from malware so commonly isn’t because the current versions are flawed or weak in security. It is because they are so popular, especially in business, that it makes them the obvious target to the legions of skilled (and sometimes not so skilled) hackers all over the world.
Less likely does not mean not likely. Bear that in mind. The myth that apple computers can’t get viruses was painfully dispelled for me.
Fun fact:
Apple seems to be determined to keep their price constant. 
My first Mac purchased in 1984 with an external floppy disk drive and a dot matrix printer cost $2500.
A 27" Retina IMac desktop computer costs $2499.
So Apple doesn’t have high prices-they are just consistent in their pricing!
Of course the real reason is people will pay the price of the existing Macs. Why would they be cheaper? If you want a cheaper machine, buy a PC. Problem solved.
So, it’s like all the PC-compatible machines are like oranges, right? and you can’t compa–OUCH!
Who threw that?
The last time I had an antivirus package running on my Mac was under System 7 and it was a freeware distribution called Disinfectant. *
Yeah, part of it is security-via-obscurity. Yeah, part of it is better (Unix-ancestry) permissions systems. SOME of it is the Mac user culture: if Mac viruses became a problem we’d band together and Mac-centric developers would again (as John Norstad did before) generate a virus-catching / virus-dispatching software product.
- My comment in the toast to John Norstad appears under my then-current email address ahunter@ccvm.sunysb.edu
Given all the attacks Windows has suffered over the years it is probable that Windows is the most secure windowing OS. More recent major security breaches have been through other avenues like Java or OpenSSL. Virus writers attack Windows because:
- It has the most users.
- The least savvy users (and thus the easiest ones to attack) use Windows because it is the default.
A competent Windows user is just as safe (or just as unsafe) as a OS/X user.
I spent 1500 on a pc over 5 years ago and other than a new video card and upgrading my c drive to a solid state it runs like a friggin champ, I cannot imagine what I would do with 5500$ worth of pc. probably spend 1500$ on it and 4k on a used car.
[QUOTE=Deeg]
A competent Windows user is just as safe (or just as unsafe) as a OS/X user.
[/QUOTE]
But there’s the problem. A Windows user needs to become competent, probably only after a series of painful lessons, but a newbie OS X user doesn’t need to do much at all to be safer than a competent or even an expert Windows user. And it’s debatable that an “expert” is safer. If anything, they’re at more risk as they get tired of the system asking “Do you really want to do this?” and disabling various protective mechanisms.
Back to the original question… Apple computers only seem to cost more. In my experience, they last about twice as long as a Windows PC before failing or becoming intolerably slow. Also, not needing to burden them with antivirus software saves a couple hundred dollars worth of CPU speed. My work PC has an i5 processor, but when the antivirus is doing its thing, the computer is almost unusable.
- A lot of folks think of Microsoft as the Evil Empire. The fact that Microsoft often acts like an Evil Empire (bullying companies through what is basically a monopoly, intentionally targeting other company’s software, using the tactic of lawyering other companies to death to drive them out of competition, etc) doesn’t help the situation any.
- Historically, up through Windows XP or thereabouts, Windows by default ran users in admin mode, which made it easier for malware to get in deeper into the system and cause more problems. One of the things that Windows users had to get used to when they upgraded to Windows Vista or 7 was the difference between user mode and admin mode, something that users of other operating systems were already used to. Even though Microsoft has switched to a more secure user/admin model by default, there is still already a culture of hackers and virus makers whose target of choice has been and will continue to be Windows.
If you get better quality hardware, a Windows box will last at least as long as an Apple box. As was already pointed out upthread, Apple doesn’t make bargain basement el-cheapo hardware.
A properly maintained Windows computer doesn’t get slow. My XP box runs just as fast now as it did when I installed XP on it.
There are decent anti-virus programs out there that aren’t such resource hogs.
Unfortunately, I feel your pain. Before my last work PC was upgraded, it performed like a snail on sedatives whenever the anti-virus kicked off. Most work environments don’t let you choose your own anti-virus. You are stuck with whatever they decide to use. Our work also had a policy set that you couldn’t turn off the virus scan. Whenever it kicked off, I basically went off and did something else for about half an hour. The computer was just unusable during that time.
We changed anti-virus software and I have a newer PC now, so it’s no longer an issue. But yeah, been there, done that. I know how you feel.
They are just expensive enough that your average person who has bought one will resist throwing it out an upper story window when it baffles said person, on account of wasting all that money.
Whereas when PCs misbehave you can usually just sit there and figure it out.
I confess I love the look and feel of the apple equipment and from my limited experience of using them they are nice enough.
For some people that “nice enough” is reason enough to pay the extra cash, people like things that please them aesthetically and no other reason is needed. They are nicely built, their OS just works for a lot of people, their components are good quality and in straight comparison to similar PC’s they are not necessarily that much more expensive.
Whether they are “better” for you depends on your demands. I bought my wife a Moto E smartphone. For £70 contract free it takes care of 100% of her needs but certainly an iphone is “better” in most every way, it would just be overkill for her.
Similarly I use a £180 chromebook for 95% of my laptop needs. A macbook is “better” but again, it is overkill for me.
For me, it’s about simplicity. I bought my current MacBook Pro in 2008, use it heavily, have spent zero minutes of my life maintaining or fixing it, and it is still perfectly functional as my primary computer.
My Windows friends, especially those buying the el-cheapo “great deal” laptops, have all had to deal with multiple replacements in this timeframe. And they’ve had cumulative months of sub-optimal performance.
I’m computer savvy and could maintain a windows machine. But I don’t want to. I want to open the damn thing and have it work.
Same here… just a week ago I was skyping with a friend abroad who noted that he had gone through about 3 laptops, in the time that I’ve been using my macbook (also 2008). Still runs fine as long as I do an update once in a while.
When it’s time to replace this one, I’m sure I’ll be tempted by the cheap windows options… but the longer this one keeps holding out, the more likely it is I’ll stick to Apple.
Funnily enough I’m the opposite with phones. Since I’m likely to drop them once every while, I prefer to stick to relatively cheap androids instead of going for an iPhone.
Thank goodness there are choices or I would be stuck with something I would not like.
Now a perfect ‘speak to type’, with perfect punctuation with no effort on my part, form filling function and 100% safe from hackers & my mistakes, well, I would love it even if it was in a cardboard box with hand drawn on & off button.
I’m reminded of this quote from John Ruskin:
This is a bogus argument. The lion’s share of OS X machines run on an admin account, because that is as far as the installer/welcome-setup UI goes. Users are, IME, never encouraged by the system to create a default user-level account. And when it comes to network attacks, those daemons, like Apache and sshd already run at an admin or root level, if they have vulnerabilities, they would have to be serious ones. Running as admin is only an issue for trojany stuff, which exploits weakness in the wetware, no system can be built to fully protect PEBSK issues.