Ding! Mac vs. PC cost analysis, Round II
Whose software, reliability are better? Our findings might surprise you. Plus: Figuring in the Mac's fun factor.
Scot Finnie
August 09, 2007 (Computerworld) -- There's no question about it. My
Mac vs. PC cost analysis column, which focused on the relative costs of Mac and Windows hardware, struck a chord. I was praised and lambasted around the Internet for it when it appeared in June.
It seemed to me that people who criticized this story missed the key points I was trying to get across:
1. This was a pure, hardware-based, speeds-and-feeds kind of comparison. I was comparing the hardware goods only, including CPU, chip set, RAM, video, display, hard-drive capacity and specs, ports and upgradeability, dimensions and weight, and so on.
In other words, I was attempting to make an objective comparison that did not inject any evaluation of the hardware, anything at all about the software, or anything about my personal experience with the operating systems and hardware involved. It was an on-paper comparison.
I did that purposely to lay the groundwork for further analysis about the value of Macs vs. Windows PCs. I started with the objective measures.
2. The main point I was trying to make is that when you compare Macs with comparably equipped Windows PCs, sometimes Macs beat Windows PCs in the price/performance comparison. Sometimes Windows PCs beat Macs. Overall, there's relative parity.
There is a time component to this kind of analysis. The Windows PC makers lagged behind
Apple for a while on the CPU front, but with the release of the
Santa Rosa platform (Intel's marketing name is Centrino Pro), many are catching up again. The value meter may be tipping a bit toward Windows PCs now as a result. But this ebb and flow is a natural part of computer valuations. It never rests. Pricing is always in flux.
It's definitely true that Apple Mac pricing has not always approached parity. I've made this comparison before. Macs have clearly been more expensive than Windows PCs in the distant past. But if you're talking about name-brand Windows PCs from reputable manufacturers like Dell, HP, Toshiba, Acer, Gateway, Lenovo and others, right now, the out-the-door pricing is more or less on par.
Important point: For a direct comparison to be made, there has to be a Mac SKU that directly equates to the exact set of features you want. And that's where we enter into a completely subjective realm and get away from intrinsic value.
Just because you don't want this or that small feature that the Mac offers doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't want it. And vice versa. So if you desire a specific set of features that falls between specific Mac SKUs and the way those machines can be configured, then some Windows PC somewhere may, in fact, be a better value -- for you.
This point isn't unique to computer sales. Buy a Honda automobile, for example, and you'll find there are three or four models for any car type, and the only options are dealer installable. Like Honda, Apple has smartly positioned its specific models.
There's also a corresponding point to be made: The
Macintosh lineup consists of five model lines and 12 basic SKUs (or specific models), each of which offers additional configuration. There are three desktop and two notebook model lines.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Here are some of the other quotes in the article that I found very compelling. I've been trying to tell people these things for quite a few months now.
Quote:
|
If you're not that familiar with Macs, you have to open your mind, take a look at the different Mac models and closely compare the specs.
|
Quote:
|
Though it's true that in some categories there are only two or three Mac offerings, all in all there is a very solid, rich spread of software makers creating Mac applications. As a longtime software reviewer, I've been surprised by the quality of these applications.
|
Quote:
|
The Mac represents the most reliable vehicle you can buy (perhaps a Toyota?). There's a hidden value to having far fewer problems than average. And a big segment of the computer-using marketplace doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that.
|
Quote:
|
You're not conscious of your TV while you're watching it. That's the way it is with a Mac. I found that much harder to achieve on Windows PCs, which are constantly drawing attention to themselves.
|
Quote:
"A programmer at work said yesterday that he hated Apple. I asked whether he'd ever used a Mac. Nope."
He'd probably hate chocolate if he hadn't tried it, too.
|
Quote:
|
"You're not going to believe it until you try it yourself. I didn't."
|
I also found this pointed and accurate little snippet on
MacDailyNews:
Quote:
|
The vast majority of Mac users have Windows experience (via school, work, friends, and family). The vast majority of Windows users have no Mac experience. Think about it. Informed users overwhelmingly choose Macintosh over Windows PCs. Uninformed Windows PC users just keep obtusely buying Windows PCs while spouting myths and out-dated ignorance about Macs.
|
People ask me why do I bother? Why do I keep posting these threads? Why do I want to spread awareness for the Mac platform?
Well, the reason is that when I had set out to buy a notebook, if no one had told me about the Mac and I'd bought some other notebook (as I was about to) and then used someone else's Mac later, I would have suffered immense buyer's remorse. Immense and unquantifiable. I simply cannot bear people spending a lot of money on a computer and ending up with a Windows PC. So I just want them to know that the option is there.
The purpose of this post is to spotlight an interesting piece of news and not to spark off yet another flame war.
Windows expert to Redmond: Buh-bye
Re: Windows expert to Redmond: Buh-bye
look whos using words like zealotry ...
Linear Mode
