This comparison does not hold. A lot of parts are of the same quality as in pc's as they are 100 % the same. A problem for Apple is that they don't sell as much hardware as generic pcbuilders and thus they pay more for their cdrom/dvdrom/harddrives etc. The buyer of a Mac will have to pay more for the hardware because of that and other reasons. Sometimes the parts were substandard in the past, think of power supplies that were produced in small numbers and were underdimensioned because of cost. CPU speeds are lower because Apple is one of the few manufacturers that needs fast RISC CPUs. On the other hand: Apple is the first to introduce newer techniques like IEEE1394 or Firewire, Gigabit ethernet, wireless etc. so naturally this will add to the cost. This can have a fanout of adapters, cables and the like because users want to use their older peripherals on newer Macs. ADB vs. USB is an example of that, or the Apple-own DVI variant. If I count that costs to the total cost of a Mac....
Apple has the advantage that hard and software work seamlessly together as they are designed by the same company. This is a true advantage as Mac-users are used to a computer that does what it should do. Productivity is higher than that of pc-users since ages because of the clever interface and interaction with the user. A pc user can't beat that. It is a joy to work with a Mac once you get used to it. Maintenance is not as much needed as with pc's which counts as a great advantage, not just costwise. Virusses are something a Mac-user laughs about when the rest of the company is infected with the latest Netsky variant.
They have been used by users in the creative fields of art, publishing, video and audio in the past for various reasons but even the fanatical Apple users will agree that the traditional differences between Mac and pc have become a lot smaller ( except for the design that is beautiful with the more recent models ). The introduction of the rocksolid MacOS X has changed things quite a bit but Win XP is not bad either. Cost of Win XP is higher but bought with volume licences things look different. Office is expensive for both Mac and pc.
In the end it'll be a question of taste and software although I really doubt Apple will ever return to the normal offices. They have a chance on traditional niche markets like DTP and graphical design till pc's have taken over. Unfortunately some of the traditional softwarehouses like Adobe don't produce MacOS X versions of some of their software. This is a pity for the future of Apple and they will have a hard time developing their own software. Windows does not lack any software in whatever field you can mention. Also prices of pc software are often lower than the Apple versions. A real advantage in costs, there is also choice in software.
We can discuss about quality but Mac computers break down too ( the Cube for instance ). We should compare downtime of brand pc's like Dell with Apple, I am sure the difference is minimal. Some models break down more than others but still. I install/maintain Macs so I should know a little. The fact that Mac's last twice as long as pc's can be taken with a grain of salt as pc's and mac's do not need to live longer than 3 years in real life ( in companies ). Upgrade-ability of pc's exceed that of Mac computers as parts are cheap and interchangeable. Ever bought a new VGA board for a mac ??? Apple Mac computers are more expensive than pc's and that alone is enough to lose a battle in the economical situation of today. History learnt that the best platforms rarely win/survive. Just look at VCC vs. VHS....
Apple has the advantage that hard and software work seamlessly together as they are designed by the same company. This is a true advantage as Mac-users are used to a computer that does what it should do. Productivity is higher than that of pc-users since ages because of the clever interface and interaction with the user. A pc user can't beat that. It is a joy to work with a Mac once you get used to it. Maintenance is not as much needed as with pc's which counts as a great advantage, not just costwise. Virusses are something a Mac-user laughs about when the rest of the company is infected with the latest Netsky variant.
They have been used by users in the creative fields of art, publishing, video and audio in the past for various reasons but even the fanatical Apple users will agree that the traditional differences between Mac and pc have become a lot smaller ( except for the design that is beautiful with the more recent models ). The introduction of the rocksolid MacOS X has changed things quite a bit but Win XP is not bad either. Cost of Win XP is higher but bought with volume licences things look different. Office is expensive for both Mac and pc.
In the end it'll be a question of taste and software although I really doubt Apple will ever return to the normal offices. They have a chance on traditional niche markets like DTP and graphical design till pc's have taken over. Unfortunately some of the traditional softwarehouses like Adobe don't produce MacOS X versions of some of their software. This is a pity for the future of Apple and they will have a hard time developing their own software. Windows does not lack any software in whatever field you can mention. Also prices of pc software are often lower than the Apple versions. A real advantage in costs, there is also choice in software.
We can discuss about quality but Mac computers break down too ( the Cube for instance ). We should compare downtime of brand pc's like Dell with Apple, I am sure the difference is minimal. Some models break down more than others but still. I install/maintain Macs so I should know a little. The fact that Mac's last twice as long as pc's can be taken with a grain of salt as pc's and mac's do not need to live longer than 3 years in real life ( in companies ). Upgrade-ability of pc's exceed that of Mac computers as parts are cheap and interchangeable. Ever bought a new VGA board for a mac ??? Apple Mac computers are more expensive than pc's and that alone is enough to lose a battle in the economical situation of today. History learnt that the best platforms rarely win/survive. Just look at VCC vs. VHS....
I use both a 1.8 GHz DELL and a stone age Mac G3 at 267 MHz (500 HMz at home) and the functional speed difference isn't as huge as you might think. The DELL (DVD-RW, ZIP, FW, USB, SC, Speakers, graphic card, modem, network card etc) costed last year around 2500 USD and you can get a decent Mac for this with similar accessories.
Could you get a decent Mac at *that* time for the same money !?!? Last year G4 computers were pretty expensive compared to pc's with comparable real-life speed ( if you want to do the useless comparison in speed ). I also think that the Dell was one of the more expensive models of that time and that it was bought with 3 years onsite service and accessoires.
BTW I have a pile of beige G3 266 MHz computers at work that have been written off by Apple users because they're too slow to work with.
BTW I have a pile of beige G3 266 MHz computers at work that have been written off by Apple users because they're too slow to work with.
This keeps getting dragged around to hardware... hardware isn't all that important, it is just the player -- reminds me of the lost audiophiles who are only interested in the equipment and forget that the whole point of the excercise is to enjoy the music.
The Mac has way more elegant software than any Windoz box, and that all starts at the OS. The reason a Mac lasts twice as long as a PC is because the software is still doing the job.... people are still getting done what they need to get done. The Mac OS -- Classic or UNIX *breaks much less than Windoz -- a major contributor to a lower total cost of ownership. I know many a tech who says if you want a computer to use, get a Mac, if you want one that will keep me employed buy a Windoz box (i don't know how many times i've heard -- OK we need to do a complete reinstall from the ground up -- it is something that just doesn't have to be done that often on a Mac).
*althou OS X breaks quite a bit less than Classic (just like anything when it does break it can be a real mess).
And this is backed up by serious research -- a study of close to 4000 creative businesses using computers showed that a Mac user on average had 27 billable hours in a 40 hr work week, and a PC user 18. A large portion of the 9 hours difference was spent having the computer user watching the tech fix his computer ... add the dollars up on that -- matter of fact the study said that it could be used as the basis for a law suit against any director advocating change to Windoz based on failing their fiduciary responsibilities.
XP may seem similar to OS X on the face of it, but it is not even close. Further, by the next time the Windoz OS has a major upgrade, OS X will have had many significant upgrades -- so far they are coming about 9 months apart, with regular incremental upgrades in between.
Microsoft has already shot themselves in the foot, it is just soooo biiiggg that it is going to take sometime for the gangarene to kill it.(flame suit on).
dave
The Mac has way more elegant software than any Windoz box, and that all starts at the OS. The reason a Mac lasts twice as long as a PC is because the software is still doing the job.... people are still getting done what they need to get done. The Mac OS -- Classic or UNIX *breaks much less than Windoz -- a major contributor to a lower total cost of ownership. I know many a tech who says if you want a computer to use, get a Mac, if you want one that will keep me employed buy a Windoz box (i don't know how many times i've heard -- OK we need to do a complete reinstall from the ground up -- it is something that just doesn't have to be done that often on a Mac).
*althou OS X breaks quite a bit less than Classic (just like anything when it does break it can be a real mess).
And this is backed up by serious research -- a study of close to 4000 creative businesses using computers showed that a Mac user on average had 27 billable hours in a 40 hr work week, and a PC user 18. A large portion of the 9 hours difference was spent having the computer user watching the tech fix his computer ... add the dollars up on that -- matter of fact the study said that it could be used as the basis for a law suit against any director advocating change to Windoz based on failing their fiduciary responsibilities.
XP may seem similar to OS X on the face of it, but it is not even close. Further, by the next time the Windoz OS has a major upgrade, OS X will have had many significant upgrades -- so far they are coming about 9 months apart, with regular incremental upgrades in between.
Microsoft has already shot themselves in the foot, it is just soooo biiiggg that it is going to take sometime for the gangarene to kill it.(flame suit on).
dave
jean-paul said:
Any chance of getting the motherboard from one of those? The G3 All-in-One i use with Mac-the-Scope as a dedicated oscilloscope has gone down with a dead board and i'd sorely like to resurrect it (and an Apple replacement is worh more than the computer)
The Biege G3s are falling off the bottom because they really aren't adequate to run OS X (having all the old standard mac I/O connections) ... they are also all 6 or 7 years old.
dave
planet10 said:
I think we are doing this backwards. People (most of them anyway) purchase computers as tools, not as a platform to run a given OS.
Yes, OSX may be better than Windows, but that's pretty much meaningless for a lot of us who, as long as they can find a copy of Office, are happy as a dog.
It is in terms of software titles (again, grossly generalizing it) that Windows has a considerable advantage over the OSX.
The best OS I have ever encountered is Forth: small, integrated and does pretty much anything. Then it is not for everyone.
As for usability, both BeOS and DOS are pretty good. I think NextOS and OSX are similar with OSX has a more modern look. some linux distributions aren't bad either (Knoppix comes to my mind).
peranders said:It's a shame though that there isn't a single good pcb cad software for the Mac
There are a few verticals where this is sadly the case. As we proceed in time, we should see more solid UNIX ports coming on stream and with the power of the G5 we will see workstation class software running on G5s with a real coherent UI.
Alias is an early prime example of this. in the beginning their software would only run on UNIX workstations (ie SGI), then they started selling it on NT. When OS X finally came out and they got a full port running, the much larger installed base coupled with subsequent increase in sales allowed them to drop the price by half to $2500 per seat.
Design wins like the Virgina Tech's price-busting super computer are showing that when it comes to serious computing power for the least money, you can't beat a G5. And with IBM's reaserch and development fully behind the G5, we haven't seen anything yet.
dave
One of the real problems in pcland and companies is the diverseness in software that need to run on the systems. You just can't compare that with Apple. Imagine DOS applications that need to run on 2003 boxes. Also Windows servers need to do more different tasks in general. Macs have to function in a much slimmer area in that aspect.
Complete reinstalls is a pretty old argument that does not hold as much as Mac users would like to see it. Nevertheless I agree with you on the billable hours. Macusers are more productive and do not need equal technical skills to maintain their machine. But when things go wrong it takes a lot of time as well to fix things. Reinstallation of MacOS X takes a long time too. Just the simple fact that Macusers often forget that harddisks can become full shows that they aren't supposed to look after their machine like pcusers have to do. Please *note* ( at least in this part of the world ) that Mac repairs and Mac technicians are an awful lot more expensive that their pc counterparts. This has been proven in the past by having Apple computers repaired by different companies. Do you know what a mainboard costs of a Blue and White G3 ? I do, we had to buy a new Mac as the mainboard costed just as much as a moderate pc.
XP or MacOS updates, what's the difference ? They come out, that's it. XP will have its major update shortly, Apple will have an update as well. I do not see a real point there. Unix is some more years around and ports/updates are written frequently to take advantage of Apples hardware features. BTW Apple users often forget their OS X ran on pc's years before it even existed for Mac computers. FreeBSD is still one of the most stabile OSes in the pcworld.
As far as Microsoft is concerned; I can not agree more but that has little to do with the total costs of both systems. Sometimes these pc vs. Mac discussions bear ressemblance with religious quarrels where every single point has to be dragged to the discussion to prove someone wrong.....
BTW I see you mention G5. Did you also hear about the first breakdowns of G5's ? 9 fans and a Apple-unlike ( more AMD-like
) high power consumption take their toll.
Complete reinstalls is a pretty old argument that does not hold as much as Mac users would like to see it. Nevertheless I agree with you on the billable hours. Macusers are more productive and do not need equal technical skills to maintain their machine. But when things go wrong it takes a lot of time as well to fix things. Reinstallation of MacOS X takes a long time too. Just the simple fact that Macusers often forget that harddisks can become full shows that they aren't supposed to look after their machine like pcusers have to do. Please *note* ( at least in this part of the world ) that Mac repairs and Mac technicians are an awful lot more expensive that their pc counterparts. This has been proven in the past by having Apple computers repaired by different companies. Do you know what a mainboard costs of a Blue and White G3 ? I do, we had to buy a new Mac as the mainboard costed just as much as a moderate pc.
XP or MacOS updates, what's the difference ? They come out, that's it. XP will have its major update shortly, Apple will have an update as well. I do not see a real point there. Unix is some more years around and ports/updates are written frequently to take advantage of Apples hardware features. BTW Apple users often forget their OS X ran on pc's years before it even existed for Mac computers. FreeBSD is still one of the most stabile OSes in the pcworld.
As far as Microsoft is concerned; I can not agree more but that has little to do with the total costs of both systems. Sometimes these pc vs. Mac discussions bear ressemblance with religious quarrels where every single point has to be dragged to the discussion to prove someone wrong.....
BTW I see you mention G5. Did you also hear about the first breakdowns of G5's ? 9 fans and a Apple-unlike ( more AMD-like
) high power consumption take their toll.
millwood said:
Software should always come 1st. 95% of the software that most people need (some verticals excepted, and many ganes) run on the Mac. And if Office is what you want to use, it is already 3rd rate as far as quality goes, but i'd still rather run it on a Mac than a PC (Word & Excel were both developed for the Mac and came to the PC much later). Certainly in today's world where what many people want to do is access the internet, the software selection on the Mac is quite possibly richer than on a Windoz PC. And the Macs those people buy come with AppleWorks, which does everything they would be interested in having Office do (and without alot of the stuff that they will never use -- Word takes more horsepower to run than my CAD software, figure that one out!)
For what most people do, Windows has no advantage. And there are verticals where you'd be crazy to use anything but a Mac.
I'm a big FORTH fan (most won't even know what you are talking about), i wrote a FORTH implementation for the TeleScketch (6809 GUI PC that went nowhere), but with nothing but a command line UI its appeal is somewhat limited. Incredible for real-time aps thou.
dave
Agreed.
But I do own Mac and my dad owns Windows98. As a gamer, Win is sadly the only way to go. I own a LCIII, SE/30, SE, LC575, PowerBook 145, PowerBook 5300. I know, all of them are 100mhz and below, but they have their good qualities. Macs are by far the most charming computer/OS combo I have ever used. They're a little short on the gaming end but they have some cute games
I'm most attached to my 16mhz SE/30.A little advertised fact is MACS DO CRASH and you never know why, you have to go through a process of elimination to find the offending program. When windows crashes, you have a vague idea of why. When Linux crashes, you know exactly why, and if you're good, you know how to fix it.
As for Mac performance, I was a little disappointed when my 100Mhz 603e processor couldn't play an MP3 smoothly.
Why did I use windows? Because it was there, and everyone else used it, and lots of software was written for it.
Why don't I use windows anymore?
-Product registration (need MS authorization to modify my system)
-Resource hog (MS assumes you won't be needing that extra horsepower)
-Vulnerable to worms/viruses even with most anti-virus
-Privacy risks
Despite all the Macs I own, my work/play machine is a 1533mhz Athlon running Mandrake Linux 9.1 almost exclusively. My uptime is 12 days and counting, with windows I averaged a day or two tops. Uptime is great, as a college student I'm in and out of my room all the time and it's good to come back to my machine the way I left it.
Also, a command prompt is mandatory in my opinion. It allows scripting and other fun things. Mac never had one and Windows is trying to get rid of theirs.
Gotta tell ya ...
OS bashing doesn't get any better than this!
I manage a large SCO UNIX system for Fox13 Television, Tampa.
Uptime is now 327 days with no problems.
Any Mac or PC users out there that can come close to this uptime?
I do, however, have two PC's and a Mac at home. They all crash regularly.
OS bashing doesn't get any better than this!
I manage a large SCO UNIX system for Fox13 Television, Tampa.
Uptime is now 327 days with no problems.
Any Mac or PC users out there that can come close to this uptime?
I do, however, have two PC's and a Mac at home. They all crash regularly.
Frank Berry said:
Updates or software installs that require a restart come too often to accumulate that kind of record, but the last time my OS X box crashed was last April sometime, and other than booting up for disk de-fragmentaion my OS 9 web server has been crash free for even longer.
dave
My SCO Servers don't require me to reboot for system maintenance. I merely shut down the Server software and perform a DBVISIT (much like a Windows Defrag) and then perform a "startup" of the Server software.
Of course, like all computer systems, SCO can develop problems with stuck PID's. Sometimes it's easier to just log everyone out and reboot (init 0) the system.
Of course, like all computer systems, SCO can develop problems with stuck PID's. Sometimes it's easier to just log everyone out and reboot (init 0) the system.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.