After the more-or-less positively received “You find it, you keep it” television advertisements, it seems as if Microsoft is quickly falling back to its previous mistakes of relying on easily countered FUD-like tactics. We already discussed the blog post regarding Linux on netbooks, which was easily countered on virtually every point made. However, it gets even worse: Microsoft has ordered a study detailing what the company calls the hidden “Apple tax” that you are supposedly paying if you go Apple. Now, I’m the first to state that Apple simply doesn’t provide the optimal pricing for everyone, but this Microsoft sponsored study is so completely and utterly ridiculous it makes me wonder just who on earth would look at it and go “Yeah, this looks pretty convincing!”
Microsoft announced the new report on the Windows Experience weblog, a post written by someone we already know: Brandon LeBlanc. The report in question, sponsored by Microsoft and written by Roger Kay of Endpoint Technologies Associates, takes a look at a fictional family, and tallies their computer-related expenses over a period of five years, both for the Apple side as well as the PC side. It takes both hardware and software into account. The conclusion? By going PC, you’d save USD 3367.
The report is available as a .pdf file, but Microsoft has put the findings in a tax return-like form, and as you can see, there are some seriously dubious choices in there. The first one I noticed is that the family has to buy an Office and Quicken license when going Mac, but when going PC, they apparently already have those licenses.
Then there’s the weirdness regarding the wireless router. I have and have had several Macs, but I’ve never bought any of the Apple wireless products. I bought a very cheap (35 EUR) wireless router over two years ago, and it still functions to this very day. The report somehow assumes that in order to use wireless internet with Apple machines, you need an Airport base station, which is utter nonsense, of course.
And can someone tell my why a normal family would buy a Mac Pro? Aren’t those professional workstations? How many home users buy expensive Sun workstations? Wouldn’t a family buy an iMac? Choosing a Mac Pro in this comparison inflates the Apple side of things needlessly.
They also touch the subject of BluRay. The report is indeed correct in that current Macs do not ship with BluRay capabilities, but the assumption that because of that lack Apple users need to buy a stand-alone player (as opposed to an internal BluRay drive on the PC side) is dubious. A Mac Pro can easily take a normal internal BluRay drive as well.
There are also a few things that do honestly work in the PC side’s favour. For instance, a Mac graphics card upgrade will cost considerably more than a PC graphics card, something that honestly never made any sense to me. Another interesting one is MobileMe; Microsoft provides the same services for free.
All in all though, this report is nonsensical. Apple is a company that provides its customers with very little choice, and it doesn’t serve the lower end of the market. Some of its component choices are highly debatable at best, and many people could certainly get a lot more value on the PC side of things, but this report will do nothing to sway people one way or the other.
Ultimately, though, I’m personally very tired of these side-by-side comparisons. They are always generalised beyond pointlessness, and have no base in reality. Can we all just please agree to stop making these comparisons? They look ugly in our comments section too, you know.
Windows relatively cheap up front… now lets add a virus scanner a firewall and technician service fees for when you get infected anyway.
Apple expensive up front… you’ll probably pay again to upgrade in a year.
Linux free if you have some technical knowledge… it’ll cost you in time although less time every year as more and more things work and less research is required.
They all have a “tax” its just a matter of how you want to pay.
You have a point there.
What I find simply amazing is why it is Microsoft that is so upfront about competing with Apple…considering that people are actually purchasing Apple, and installing Windows. Point is, who Apple really hurts when a consumer purchases Apple is the hardware makers. Let’s face it, we are NOT putting OSX on HP computers, and you can’t exactly put any HP desktop or laptop into a Apple laptop now can you?
Which leads me back to my question, why do the hardware manufacturers like IBM, Dell, HP, etc.. remain silent? I can not name one single add by any of them that targeted their competition with Apple.
Of course personally I am taking a look at this through the eyes of a HP reseller. I could give a damn about Windows or Microsoft, as that is not relevant. In fact if anything, for our business, Linux is the threat to Apple OSX, not Windows. But our primary focus has been the hardware, in terms of sales, and there Apple just can not compete. The price that we can provide HP server with OpenSuse, SLES, or Windows is still always significantly lower to Apple’s. Through HP’s Smart Buy program, Apple just does not compete. Again, the point here is that Apple competes with HP for us, not Windows.
Seems to come down to that Microsoft sees Apple as a software company, HP sees them as well. But is Apple really just a software company? I think one could make an argument easily that this is not the case.
” The price that we can provide HP server with OpenSuse, SLES, or Windows is still always significantly lower to Apple’s.”
Windows servers always cheaper because you need a very advanced administrator to configure even the simplest service tasks ( eg DNS/Active directory/ File server) while with linux you must be a command line expert to do it.
In osx server even a business owner can confiure the server basic tasks and get it ready with little help if any.
Apple has the right to charge for its superior OS because thats the reason why you buy the hardware.
I don’t think Apple has ever aimed XServe at the conventional server market. They are mostly marketing it as an internal server to support collaboration between workgroups. The performance of OS X Server needs a lot of work before it can compete with linux.
Well we are after all a VAR…Value added reseller. Meaning we do support what we sell, kind of the point. So whether the OS is Windows, Linux, Solaris, or OSX, we either will be administering it, or the client has their own admin. Regardless, the last Xserve I touched was in 2005, where we replaced it with a HP DL380 with hot swap 15k SCSI, Suse, and 3yr 24×7 NBD support for significantly less than what a Xserve would have cost. Please do consider the Xserve that was quoted had one 80GB non hot swap IDE drive, and an extra cost a ridiculous $200+ that HAD to be purchased from Apple exclusively due to the drive cage not available anywhere. Apple also had a very pathetic pricing plan for extended warranty support, as opposed to the HP’s which was included.
Customer paid several hundred less, still got Apache for web, Bind for DNS, and Samba for file…so what exactly would they have gained via the Apple?
p.s. That server is 4+ years running 24×7 without failure as most HP’s are extremely reliable. So again, what would Apple have given that HP+Linux could not have?
Now why would anybody buy an expensive piece of Apple hardware with an alien keyboard layout and a one-button mouse just to run Windows on it?
1.) It’s a waste of a perfectly good computer. It’s like buying a Ferrari and stuffing an old carburated 1.5L Honda 4-banger in it. Nobody does that.
2.) I know of no one, and I know quite a few mac users, NO ONE that runs Windows exclusively. You don’t buy a mac for that. There’s plenty of standard PC’s in the same price range that are comparable and have standard keyboard/mouse layouts.
I know a couple people that boot XP to play games. I know more than a couple people that run XP in a VM for certain gotta-have-it apps, especially home-grown apps from work.
Nobody with a technical (especially development) background can say with a straight face that Windows Vista is a solid performer and a better operating system than OS X on Apple hardware (or any other hardware for that matter).
I think Microsoft rightly fears Apple. Because what Apple CAN do to Microsoft is this:
Make multi-platform programming a necessity for 3rd party software companies.
Currently those companies mostly see Apple users as “no real market”. But with a 20 – 30% Apple market share that perception might change.
And on comes multi-platform, open-format as something people will demand. As Microsoft is depending on their lock-in strategy, anything that could break the lock is a huge danger, even more so as Apple is employing the same tactics if possible to them.
While I agree that they all have their own “taxes,” why will you pay again to upgrade in a year for Mac OS? It may be true that from Mac OS 10.0 thru 10.3 the OS upgrade path was a frenzy but:
10.3 released: October 24, 2003
10.4 released: April 29, 2005 => 18 months (longer than year)
10.5 released: October 26, 2007 => 30 months (longer than a year)
10.6 released: 2009? => already longer than a year
Not only that, but nobody forces you to upgrade. Your previous version of Mac OS does not stop working when a new version comes out.
There are still Mac users out there running Mac OS 9 and wondering why developers don’t update apps for it anymore.
Macs last a LONG time on average.
If I had one, I would’ve junked it by now. Those classic Macs were a nightmare, every time I got on one. I preferred … *gasp* Windows 9x back in those days. I don’t have anything but bad memories of those things.
I’d like to get a modern Mac, with OS X, but those have some serious drawbacks (especially in hardware and cost of their systems), which will probably force me into getting yet another PC.
For the foreseeable future, I’ll probably stick with PCs running a variant of Linux or BSD; that’s been serving me well for a couple years so far.
windows 95 was the worst wersion of windows (before ME) i’ve never seen so many irq errors before
If it works out of the box it works for a long time.
Apple has solid hardware, period! One of the reasons why I prefer the generally more expensiv apple PC hardware to Dell, Acer and Co…
The dark side of Apple is that they also have a history of hardware failures never really being fixed on the back of the end users.
Apple 2 a machine which never worked due to overheating, some Macbook Pro models had serious flaws without a recall.
The infamous combo drives which apple used for years were prone to easy failure as well according to rumors (everyone was happy when they went for real dvd burners)
The last example one of the most expensive machines, the Macbook air has been plaqued with a 130% kernel task problem once it starts to heat up to higher but still normal operating temperatures. Apple has not fixed it… the second gen also seems to have this problem which makes the otherwise nice machine almost unusable for heavier tasks and in summer.
Personal lesson learned, wait a few week if you buy an apple machine then the dark things have crawled up!
While they generally build nice but rather expensive hardware (which is worth every penny if you count in the stability of it) they also produce sometimes huge failures, and the chances are high that you will never get it fixed, if it is a design issue.
My little dual proc G4 circa 2001 runs circles around my “hyperthreaded” 2.8 ghz P4 I have at work. Running Tiger, which is about 4(?) years old on an 8 year old computer and it rarely shows it’s age during “normal” usage: surfing, finances, music, email, organizing pictures, etc. Sure, when I try to do something heavy it bombs, but I didn’t buy it for that. Plus, the whole computer including OS disc was $75…
Very well built little system.
I’m no mac expert I did think Apple pushed a new point release every year or two. I did say you would probably want an upgrade not need one.
My point was for all the cost comparisons the OS cost really isn’t that different it is just extracted in different ways. Windows is money after purchase, Apple money up front, and Linux is time to learn.
I disagree – software developers for OS X seem to move move quite quickly to support only the last two versions of the operating system. Yes, the version of OS X you have will still boot – but how useful will it be if you rely on 3rd party apps to do your business?
Between 10.4 and 10.5 was 10.4 Intel which was not such a small leap… so considering that you want to update to an Intel platform (let’s face it: the “lamp” iMac G4 at 400 MHz with 512 maximum SDRAM cannot run so well Leopard). Still, the releases are not so often, you have completely right, but they are just around once at 1 year and a half – two years!
MS option: Virus scanner- available free. Firewall – available free. Technical advice or repairs – the kid next door – also free.
You’re absolutely right. I’m glad someone gets it. I have to put in my two bits about this aspect:
I can’t stand it when people further the notion that when you buy Windows, you HAVE to buy bloated antivirus crapware and whatever else or else you’re bound to be infected with a virus. This is completely untrue (unless you visit porn, warez, etc. websites as already mentioned a few comments ago). You definitely need some sort of protection, though. All you truly need for a personal computer is a light antivirus program and maybe a firewall (if you’re peckish– I personally don’t have one and often have the Windows firewall turned off). I’ve been using the stuff included in the Google Pack for years without any problems whatsoever, and can only think of maybe three or four times in the past decade that the free antivirus actually cleaned off a virus and not just cookies. Anyone dumb enough to pay the money to buy crap like “full-protection” McAffee or Norton suites and to pay ridiculous amounts to BestBuy or whichever retail store he originally bought from from to “fix” his computers deserves everything that comes to him.
Anyway, in short terms, paying the extra ~$90 or whatever it is for full-fledged protection suites and the wads of cash for technician support is not only unnecessary but plain stupid.
However, I most definitely agree that many people want MS Office and, if you can’t get a student discount (I got Professional 2007 for $99), it alone makes the cost of a Windows PC much closer to that of a Mac, even comparable in many cases.
Edited 2009-04-10 01:47 UTC
The mac doesn’t come with an office suite either though and even after buying a suitable version of Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) you still don’t spend as much as the Mac + the $99 for iWorks or whatever office suite you purchase for it and the free ones are a moot point because they are free on Windows too.
For the record I went on Dell’s website today when I read this article and put together a 17″ dell studio laptop with a 2.66ghz core 2 duo, 4 gigs of ram, 320gb harddrive and ATI graphics for ~$1400 (I didn’t buy it, I just wanted to know what it would cost for comparison). Apple is selling the same thing with nvidia graphics for ~$2800. I mean come on. You can buy the Dell, Norton Make My PC So Slow I Couldn’t Get A Virus if I Went Looking For One (TM) 2009, Office Professional and a better firewall than the built-in windows firewall for a lot less than $2800!
Does it have an 8 hour battery life? How heavy is it? The 17in MBP is NOT designed as a desktop replacement (unlike the 17in Dell studio), but rather a PORTABLE notebook with a large screen.
Yes, a lighter frame and longer battery constitute a $1400 price difference, silly me, I knew that.
You can make a desktop replacement simply by stuffing notebook components (or even desktop components, which are cheaper) into a large shell and place a large fan inside to cool them. There is no need to optimize your design for the best heat dissipation, weight, thickness or battery life. However, when you are designing a portable computer with an amazing battery life, very thin chassis and low weight, you need to consider all of the above and make efficient use of every morsel of space you can find, which means custom shaped Lithium polymer battery (as opposed to mass produced cylindrical cells), custom charging technology to slow down battery deterioration, one piece chassis (again to minimize the amount of space wasted), LED backlight display (to minimize power consumption) etc.
Of course, you may not require those features and a desktop replacement will serve you perfectly well. That doesn’t mean they are worthless features.
Edited 2009-04-11 22:15 UTC
As far as the Dell goes:
Check the resolution and quality of the LCD screen. Chances are it’s a pretty shitty screen at that price point.
Check the EXACT model of Core 2 Duo. Chances are that it’s either a slower, older generation or it’s the lower-end 3MB cache Penryn. Keep in mind the MacBook Pro uses a 1066mhz FSB as well. The Macbook Pro has a real 1066mhz C2D w/ 6MB of cache. It will mop the floor with that Dell. Clock speed doesn’t mean shit, don’t beat that dead horse.
The Dell certainly doesn’t have Firewire 800 or even SPDIF In/Out most likely.
Is the Dell using DDR3 RAM? The macbook certainly is.
If by some miracle it’s a real Radeon and not some Radeon IGP in the Dell, I’ll slap my paycheck on the table and bet that it is not even in the same class of GPU that the Macbook Pro comes with.
This is just scratching the surface.
Now, do normal people need these features? Hell no. Most people would be fine with Netbook-class hardware w/ a 15″ screen.
Normal people are also not buying $2800 laptops.
Yes, Apple has a hole in their low-end lineup. They need a machine with a bit bigger screen in the base Macbook lineup. Other than that, their machines are NOT overpriced. They are just speced above what normal people NEED and they cost more because of that. When you compare to identical HW on the Winblows side of the fence, Apple ends up costing the same if not less.
Yeah, I love kids next door. And geek squad. And Windows XP. After they fill the owner’s heads with bad advice, misinformation and FUD, they still fail to truly solve the problem at hand if it’s any more complicated than running Ad-Aware or a virus scan.
They make me a lot of money.
Even better when they give up and try to reload the machine and leave it in an unpatched state with half of the drivers missing.
Kids next door also have no clue about what real quantifiable performance is other than comparing clock rates and the number of cores. In short, they don’t have a f**king clue and you deserve everything you get should you gamble and utilize them. And someone like me is going to rape you financially for it….. on purpose.
I’ve seen people consider an Apple, then buy a cheaper pc, 3 months later they are infected and have to rebuild their machines from scratch. Typically, this has to do with being too cheap to buy .99, er 1.29 cent tracks from ITunes. Three cheap friends, three blown laptops.
I’ve got my Apple, but, I’m still looking up how to dis-infect conflicker from Windows boxes, what free anti-virus there’s available, etc… Cheap friends pay the price. Yes, you can save Money with a PC. You get your Life Back, on a Mac.
No virus physically damages any PC and their is no need to rebuild a computer after a virus infection. You are talking absolute garbage.
In my book, losing all your personal data, and re-installing from scratch is the equivalent of a “Blown Laptop”. And I think that was obvious from the comment, where no physical damage was described.
Malware very rarely does much more than being a nuisance. Generally a repair involves no more than removing the virus and reverting to a virus-free saved state. In nearly all cases a competent technician can easily recover an personal data. Stop being drama queen.
I would not consider someone saying they need to reload from scratch after malware as being a drama queen. If a machine has been compromised by malware, then you should probably assume the worst and reload it from scratch. There is no telling what other malware or rootkit is on the machine. Virus scanners don’t find everything. I sure wouldn’t trust a machine once I know it is infected with something.
a) You are very unlikely to get malware if you use the free MS update service.
b) Most malware is from downloading pirated software and music or visiting dodgy Russian porn sites.
c) There is very rarely any need need to wipe and reinstall a home system in the case of malware. The MS patches nearly always work properly.
d) simply using firefox and bit of common sense is enough to remain problem free in most cases.
Oh, please. Porn and warez sites aren’t the only source for malware and not even the most common one that I’ve seen.
You know where most malware comes from? Those little fake greeting cards or other similar emails taht say things like “click here to read.” You know how many of those are circulating and how many people click on them without thinking? The trojans and other payloads these carry often blow straight past even an updated antivirus and, even if part of their payload is caught, something almost always gets through.
Blaming all malware on porn sites is a rather old FUD tactic itself, as it’s simply not true. Now, services like gmail filter out most of these emails, but there’s a lot of people using services like hotmail and Yahoo mail which do not, not to mention ISP-provided email services. A good internet safety lesson would help educate the public, but sadly most really don’t want to listen or will forget what you tell them five minutes after you’ve said it.
Bottom line: Malware cannot be blamed on porn and warez exclusively, far from it.
While you make some good points,
a) You are less likely to get malware, but there are occasionally zero day exploits. Keeping patched will stop a lot of stuff, but it doesn’t stop the stupidity of the user.
b) What user doesn’t do at least one of these things? And of the ones that truly honestly do not do any of this, there are still other sources such as spam.
c) The patches stop viruses actively trying to get into your system like worms, but they are worthless when the user downloads a trojan because they think it is some cool thing they want. At that point God knows what else has been done to that system. You can run a virus scan all you want, but it may or may not find everything. I would not feel remotely comfortable with using that machine for anything. Would you clean a machine of malware and then log into your bank’s website? I sure as hell wouldn’t.
d) This is completely true, but find me an end user with common sense. If you do, then they probably aren’t what I would call a typical end user. On top of this, a lot of people don’t know what Firefox is or even care. They bought a computer and they should be able to use what it came with.
“No virus physically damages any PC ”
This is not true because from my experience, most computers with bad HDDs are basically infected computers with Antivirus software.
Why?
HDDs needs to work more due to Antivirus Scanning on the background which tends to age the HDD faster due to overheating especially in laptops where heat dissipiation is less than optimal.
You can notice how much I/O Read Operations is happening in the background when you check the Task Manager (sometimes reaching a .5 TB)
Beside HDD damage due to viruses/Antiviruses, Laptop fans will work more and tend to get dysfunctional sooner.
Maybe your laptop is not really broke physically but you have to spend a lot of time before you can use it comfortably again. That’s exactly why I buy Apples. I know I pay too much, but what the heck? I just like the comfort. Windows just annoys me, and Linux does the same. I am a professional software developer, I know how to fix *any* problem on any Windows or Linux box. However personally I always run macs… why? Because I just don’t want to spend *any* time at all doing things I don’t want to do on my computer. Macs focus on comfort, they are meant for lazy people, I am lazy.
Well, especially when talking Linux, you have to not only mention the operating system, but the whole ecosystem.
For example having to buy either NOT A SINGLE application, or just the ONE killer-app you cannot live without is a considerable money-saver.
I know not a single person with a windows PC who has no illegally copied software on her/his machine. Heck, not even company PCs are really clean, policy in place and all.
If an uncrackable DRM system existed, and people really would have to pay for the licenses, open source software would already have a market share close to 95%. And closed source software would be MUCH cheaper.
At the end of the day, Microsoft lives from a huge ecosystem of illegally copied software. Microsoft looses some money through that, but it gains more by network effects than it looses to illegal copies.
Other Software companies, who cannot as easily get hardware vendors into selling their software are much more damaged by illegal copying than Microsoft, but cannot reap in the huge network effect benefits.
I hate when people use ‘tax’ because it is assuming that you have no choice and have to pay. A person who wants a Mac chooses to purchases a Mac and therefore chooses to pay a slightly higher upfront cost.
I also find it funny when I see Microsoft claim that you can get cheaper computers in the ‘PC world’ whilst ignoring the fact that you get what you pay for – you get a 17inch laptop (in the case of Lauren) with the battery life of 1 1/2 hours and weighs a tonne. If you’re willing to make the compromise for the sake of a few dollars – then all power to you, but don’t turn around and try to claim that the 17inch luggable is equal to a 17inch MacBook Pro.
Then there is the issue of the operating system – they might actually have a point if Windows and Mac OS X were equal. The simple fact of the matter is that they’re not equal. I my mind Mac OS X is vastly superior – so the question is asked, do you want a cheap laptop running Windows that has compromises (lower battery life, heavy and running Windows) or do you want a light and balanced (power versus performance) laptop running Mac OS X. Again, it isn’t comparing the same product – you’re comparing two different products.
For me, I have no ‘love’ for Apple to the point where some fanboys will stick with them through thick and thin – I’ll be more than happy to look for alternatives if Apple drops in quality. The moment when Microsoft comes up with an operating system that holds a candle to Mac OS X; something akin to a FreeBSD based operating system with a nice GUI and no legacy compromises (like the registry, drive letters and other acts of stupidity), I’ll purchase it straight away – hell, I’d pre-order it and pre-pay for it. So I am not a blind Apple fanboy, just someone who wants a decent computer experience that isn’t saddled with the gunk of the Windows world.
Edited 2009-04-09 23:17 UTC
I don’t always agree with your manners, kaiwai but I am surprised no-one amongst the other hardware manufacturers is really taking this up, which has also been alluded to I think at least once before by someone else: why isn’t Dell, who will never get I guess Apple to allow it OEM status for OS X, not develop its own shiny metals kick-ass system, based on the broad parameters you are talking about?
This I guess would seem pressing for me for my long-term strategy if I were HP or Dell since if Windows 7 does appear to be another Vista in terms of the end-user experience, and Microsoft will be pulling the plug on XP, how are you going to be able to showcase the newest hardware, and sell it effectively, if, in just 24 months time, you are saddled with making sure customers have a reasonable downgrade possibility to an OS, XP, that will by then be a decade old, and without full customer support? If trends change and we do see computer devices going the way of the iPhone, will you still want to have to rely on Microsoft to offer you a ‘compelling’ modular solution?
As we have seen with the iPhone and the netbook trend, hardware format, not software, will now drive consumer decision points to a far greater extent – sure, we had portable devices in the past, but the ubiquity, the ready connectedness, and the very different personal business processes they support are miles away from what was on offer before 2000. You will need an OS that can perform in this way, and if Microsoft cannot keep up, and OS X is barred to you, what might the other possibilities be?
Why doesn’t HP or Dell buy Sun, I wonder, and take up Solaris? If Sun has produced OS technologies that even Apple wants for its own as a selling point, that tells you something about the potential inherent in such a move.
Sorry for quoting all of your post but I thought it would be best to quote it in its entirety because I agree with it 100%.
The reason why they don’t is because they want instant profits with no long term strategy rather than a product line up differentiated not simply on price and how much specifications they can cram into a small space. Right now it is a race to the bottom and Dell is the example of a company who is still in a revenue plateau because they have nothing that differentiates themselves from the rest of the market and more importantly, they’re just another Windows vendor. The only thing that differentiates their hardware from HP is specifications and price – back to the race to the bottom one goes.
If Dell had a 5 year plan which involved constructing a easy to use OpenSolaris/GNOME based distribution where they only support just their own hardware (that is, the development they contribute is only for their own hardware lineup) and would involve massive investments by Dell into companies like Adobe and numerous other vendors to get their software onto OpenSolaris/GNOME.
It would also involve Dell needing to bring together many different opensource projects, rebranding, creating an easy to use front end through a single interface (There is a sharepoint alternative and plugin for OpenOffice and yet there is no one bringing the two together in a coherent product arrangement) – injecting alot of money via more paid programmers into OpenOffice and other projects. It would be profitable but it would take years to pay back and unfortunately shareholders have this narrow quarter to quarter view rather than a 10 year long term view.
As I said, it would require a long term plan but OEM’s these days would sooner have short term profits off the back of razor thin margins than trying to develop a long term strategy that differentiates their products from the rest of the marketplace and stabilises the margins so that there is realistic long term business viability in the computer market.
Edited 2009-04-10 11:25 UTC
There already is/was a company that did this, their name was Sun Microsystems, and look how well that worked out for them.
There is only so much you can do with open source you know…it terms of business strategy. Your talking about a 5 year plan that has zero, 0, zilch, nada, nein, non, indications there would be any return on investment. It’s not short sightedness on Dell’s part, it’s called competent governance.
Dell’s only problem is simply an issue of quality and support, and most importantly their channel of sales. Just now in 2009 have they finally figured out to start moving products through distribution. Their so called “reseller” business line was something akin to what a mom and pop store had, which is why the vast majority of VARs and resellers simply do not touch Dell.
To order from Dell as a reseller, you have to call up or e-mail your sales rep to get a quote. Most often calling gives you voicemail anyways. Normally you wait up to a day or so for someone to respond back. Of course they often f**k up the quote, so you spend several days, meanwhile a client is waiting on you. On the other hand, a quote can be provided to a client on HP or IBM in less than 10 minutes, often pricing can be told to them right over the phone.
Not every company can overcharge like Apple and get away with it. How exactly Dell is suppose to get a return on investment by providing a free OS to consumers is beyond my understanding. One thing for Red Hat or Novell to sell subscription or support services, but consumers have well shown that they will not necessarily shell out the dough for anything other than hardware extended warranties.
With a MS PC, the generic user would probably spend about $US90 extra to get a commercial Internet Security package. They install it and their PC is brought down to its knees. Two weeks later they get a computer virus anyway. They take it to the store but the store refuses to cover it under warranty. They “pay” someone who charges $100/hour to come and get rid of it. The guy deliberately spends 4 hours performing unnecessary steps and lengthily scans such as disk defragmentation that have nothing to do with the virus.
Then they complain why their PC is slow. They spend more money for extra RAM. They get someone to install it again but they quickly come to a sad realization that before they bought the extra RAM, they already had 1GB of free RAM when everything was loaded so putting extra RAM did not speed anything up.
Although I dislike Apple, I have to support it here. At the end the cost of getting an Apple PC or MS PC turns out to be about the same. If you get an Apple PC you’d probably have none of the above problems.
I totally agree with you except when you said
“Two weeks later they get a computer virus anyway. ”
most people will not get infected that fast unless they are the masters of porn, gambling, free music and video warriors.
Just a figure of speech
>>>it makes me wonder just who on earth would look at it and go “Yeah, this looks pretty convincing!”
Well… but that attitude goes right in line with the way they percieve users/potential users: idiots who can’t even be asked to understand the concept of using a password to protect their system from whatever.
…to what extent that is true or not is a whole different story
…
I mean really… there are flaws everywhere in the report. I guess when you’re so focused on one outcome you tend to gloss over important details.
Like making the assumption the PC user already owns Office and Quicken and other aspects that got charged to the Mac side but are missing from the Windows side. Come on, if you want to be fair then assume they are buying everything from scratch….
MS will come out with a new version of office as well which isn’t in there!
I don^A't like Apple^A's business philosophy: too controlling and generally more expensive, but this reports just gives Microsoft away as a completely desperate company.
You read it, and you come away thinking that Microsoft is really, really scared of Apple. If I were Microsoft I wouldn^A't be giving them any free publicity.
In any case, Microsoft^A's real problem is not Apple, but Linux. It runs on the same or cheaper hardware and any decent distribution comes with all the software that the prototypical family would really need.
Apple’s “I’m a PC, I’m a Mac” ad campaign was a FUD campaign which.. for the most part was wildly successful.
This is Microsoft striking back on a perceived weakness of Apple, and using the same FUD tactics to get their point across.
The problem is, the average user’s attention span (with regards to TV commercials) is so bad that they will not bother to do the fact checking that everyone else here will.
The second problem is that it is not in the interest of Apple to respond in a “tit for tat” fashion because most viewers would get lost in the translation, and it would be advertising dollars lost.
I don’t think Microsoft is gunning to get Apple converts back to Microsoft, those who purchase Apple products have very good reasoning behind doing so, and will most likely not have their mind changed. On the other hand, keeping current Windows users from switching to Apple is something that is within reach, and that I believe, is the purpose behind this advertising campaign.
Apple’s ads poke fun at REAL PC issues, that many people can relate to. Not FUD
…to believe.
You walk into just about any PC only seller and mention Apple and they will tell you that you have to buy ALL Apple stuff for it to work, which as you point out it utter rubbish. In my house I have an iMac, two Mac Minis, a 17″ PowerBook G4 and two generic self-built PC’s.
My iMac has an Acer 22″ (second) display, a Microsoft wireless mouse, an HP printer (which is shared via the wireless network with all of the other computers – Mac, Windows and Linux), a Sarotech external Firewire HD case, some Chinese brand external USB 2.0 HD case, a Logitech powered USB hub and I have a variety of USB memory sticks from various vendors, including Toshiba and some generic ones.
My wife’s Mini has a ViewSonic 19″ display, Microsoft wireless mouse, some el cheapo unbranded USB keyboard that is black with big letters printed on the key’s because she has impaired vision, another of those Logitech USB hubs, some generic brand USB wireless adaptor and an Agfa scanner.
My daughter’s Mini has a Dell 17″ CRT display – ok I know, I’m a cheap arse ’cause I haven’t bought her an LCD yet, but when I do it will be either an Acer or ViewSonic – some generic brand wireless keyboard and mouse combo, yet another of those Logitech hubs and a D-Link USB wireless adaptor – that uses the same drivers as the generic Chinese one on my wife’s computer – well, the other way around actually
My PowerBook has a generic brand cooling base, some Chinese brand bus powered external HD case and some other unbranded rechargeable wireless mouse, and I use a Netcomm aDSL modem, Netgear Wireless router and Linksys VOIP router.
In all of that lot I have only ever had to load drivers for the USB wireless adaptors and the Agfa scanner, the rest were simply plug and play.
My son uses a Windows (XP Pro) box for gaming because he has a flashy graphics card in it that cost almost as much as my wife’s Mini. His Windows box uses the same D-Link wireless adaptor as my daughter’s Mini and it was a more convoluted setup process for that adaptor on Windows than on the Mac even though the Mac drivers didn’t actually ship with it, because of the security I have on my network.
So just my network alone makes it pretty obvious these types of advertisements are designed to mislead people. I just find it interesting that Microsoft feel they have to resort to this type of FUD…
idiots write articles.
Look at this
“At the high end, the gap is particularly wide. A Mac Pro fetches $2,500 while a comparable HP d5100t goes for only $1,050. The Mac has a 2.66GHz quad core Xeon, and the HP a quad core Core 2, but the HP has one-third more memory, and a bigger drive.”
Is Xeon comparable to core2 or is FBDIMM comparable to non buffered non ECC RAMs or to the quality of Apple Fans and Motherboard with intel 5000 chipset or ….
I cannot believe osnews are posting for those idiots.
sorry for my language.
Microsoft accusing another vendor of a TAX!
At least you only pay the Apple “tax” if you buy
an Apple branded machine.
For how many years did we pay the (M_$) tax,
even if we didn’t want W!nd0w$
What I find highly amusing is how MS does the advertising for Apple in their recent campains, including this so called “study”, which looks more like a blog post of an MS fanboy, considering the style of writing and the already pointed out tons of mistakes.
In their “Lauren” commercial one of the first things you see is a big fat apple logo from the store that fills the whole screen. The next spot gets even better, telling the audience that the MacBook is an awesome machine but too expensive for that particular buyer. Now this “study”; focussing on the price but telling the reader as well that Vista is crap more than once, that Mac OS X is more advanced but that with Windows 7 all will be better. How often have Windows users heard the latter and MS just didn’t deliver? I don’t think many people will believe them this time.
So the whole message that the recent campains conveys to me is:
Windows machines are crap, but at least they are cheap.
Good ! Microsoft please make also a study to show the Microsoft tax included in almost all branded PCs sold in market.
I refuse to pay any forced taxes and I myself mount my computers and put linux inside them.
Microsoft tax and DRM, No Thanks ! Apple tax and DRM, No Thanks !
Microsoft should fight in the technician side if they want to recover their lost marketshare from Apple.
I am an UNIX user and have an Apple computer with MacOSX. It is a very nice piece of software compared to Windows and the OS comes with a lot of bundled software with it, so, if the computer price is higher, you can start to use the system since the first time you turn it on.
Aside of it, I installed it NetBSD’s pkgsrc package manager and it works like a charm: I’ve added several packages into my environment because MacOSX is a native UNIX-like OS and it brings a lot of powerful features.
Someone can argue that it is possible to use Cygwin or Microsoft SFU to have a UNIX layer on top of Windows, but they both are second-class citizens on top of the Win32 API.
So, for software developers, UNIX users/devs and the casual user, Mac fulfils their requirements.
The current low end Macbook was released three months ago, in January. Since it has only been three months since the last update, I doubt any of its “competitions” are updated during this time. The current Macbook has 2GB RAM (same as the competition) and much better graphics than the rest. Although the current model still has an anemic HD, it’s easily exchanged. They also conveniently neglected to mention the fact that Macbook (in fact all Apple consumer-level products) has both SPDIF output and input. Finally, they never bothered to test the battery life of the notebooks: You would think that’s more important to a notebook than card readers or HDMI ports.
Many of the same points also apply to the Mac mini and the iMac.
Finally, I would like to point out the one of reasons why Apple offers such a limited set of models is because they need to ensure the hardware is perfectly integrated with the software. I don’t think any of its competitions can say the same thing. This is one of the biggest reasons why people are drawn towards Macs.
This document is far worse than the recent MS laptop hunter ads: At least the ads used half truths to make somewhat valid points, such as a more fine-grained selection for PCs. This document deliberately used outdated data to mislead people.
Edited 2009-04-10 00:33 UTC
Apple’s “I’m a Mac” campaign was interesting, because while it was short on many details (there were a few ala viruses, media creation, etc.), it had a playful spirit. The PC character wasn’t necessarily bashed on as worthless or useless – just sort of clumsy. Like that awkward uncle that you love but wears a pocket protector to every family gathering or whatever. The ads had some subtlety to them in that it continually suggested that Macs and PCs can get along.
There isn’t any real subtlety in Microsoft’s latest efforts. Kind of sad. A stronger ad campaign would emphasize their new Live offerings and even admitting that Apple had them beat for a bit.
The only subtlety in these ads by Microsoft seem to indicate Microsoft is resigned to moving software via hardware sales. Interesting.
It started that way, I thought the first 5-6 were pure genius. Lately it has gotten rather vicious though
Strangely, Microsoft paid for ads that do not even speak about their products. Those ads shows a price comparison between HP and Apple. But where is the comparison between Microsoft OS and Apple OS?
To be honest, NO OS is really going to be the winner. They’re all taking baby steps to this very day, and will be for quite some time. Why? User needs are constantly changing and evolving. I suspect it’s going to get to a point where we won’t be able to tell the desktops apart because they’ll all start looking and acting the same. In the end, the only thing that will seperate them is the hardware they run on…
“…this Microsoft sponsored study is so completely and utterly ridiculous it makes me wonder just who on earth would look at it and go “Yeah, this looks pretty convincing!”
As P.T. Barnum once quipped: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Never underestimate the shear stupidity of the general public. They’ll believe pretty much anything they hear or read and won’t do an iota of research to verify it.
I’ve been reading about this microsoft’s new ad all day but in none of the comments have I seen something to me that is glaringly obvious. With every version of Mac OS X you get Xcode a full featured development environment for Mac OS X to recieve something comparable from Microsoft one has to shell out the big bucks to buy Visual Studio (I may be getting this comparison wrong of course).
my 2 cents
MS also offers the free Visual Studio Express, but that’s aimed at a completely different user base, so I don’t think it’s comparable.
Visual Studio express is more then enough for everything up to full time development, and VS pro (costs about 80$) is good enough for everything else. Most of the tools that are built in to the higher SKUs are crap anyways.
google_ninja wrote:
–“Visual Studio express is more then enough for everything up to full time development, and VS pro (costs about 80$) is good enough for everything else.”
I think you mean 800$ for VS pro right? And while Visual Studio Express is good unfortunately they’ve crippled it by removing profile-guided optimization.
VS C++ express cannot compile MFC or ATL applications, so I don’t think it’s fine for full time development. It also doesn’t include a profiler among other things.
XCode obviously doesn’t have this sort of artificial restrictions. It includes a full-featured profiler, Shark, as well as the global tracing application Instruments.
Edited 2009-04-10 05:57 UTC
Can you please point me to where you can get Visual Studio Professional for $80.
yeah, i actually paid 80$ for mine, but i have connections didn’t realize how expensive it actually is. unfortunately you can’t edit old comments. Just goes to show how broken the mod system on OSAlert is that a blatently false statement like that didnt get buried.
Edited 2009-04-13 15:06 UTC
North America represents only 5% of the global population. It is also the only place that has high Mac marketshare. Mac use is almost non-existent in many countries. The fastest expanding computer markets are in relatively low wage countries like India and Brazil where Macs are expensive and uncommon.
Outside North America Apple charges a huge premium over PC manufacturers. In Australia a Mac can cost nearly twice the price of an equivalent PC.
Service. Outside of North America Apple service is a big problem. Some places in Australia are over 1000km from the nearest Apple reseller. Every suburb and small town has a PC retailer and there is always mail order and EBay for PC parts. It is always very easy to find someone who is an PC expert.
Service costs. In Australia a PC technician charges about USD50/hr. In many low wage countries a PC technician will cost you virtually nothing – $5/hr or even less.
Weight and battery life are irrelevant for many people. They want as much power and as large a screen as possible. My brother is a civil engineer and surveyor he buys the biggest and most powerful desktop replacement he can find. It merely needs to be transportable not highly convenient. He always plugs it in and almost never uses the battery. I am sure there is a limited market for a 10kg “laptop” with a 22″ screen, quad sata raid, 16GB of RAM and dual xeons.
A huge amount of professional, commercial and technical software is strictly windows only such as the Autocad range. Professional users are simply not interested in alternatives.
In low wage countries, $5/hour or less would be considered expensive.
That’s just a small subset of the market. Most notebook buyers will consider battery life and weight.
Edited 2009-04-10 04:19 UTC
Yes it is a subset. However Apple don’t even give you the choice.
Having a streamlined set of products allows Apple to provide tight integration between hardware and software, which is one of the main advantages of Macs.
I think you actually mean that Apple only supports a very tiny subset of standard PC hardware. Windows and Linux could also easily choose to do likewise.
They could, but Windows’ biggest appeal is its wide selection of hardware, as MS has shown in the recently ads. Linux’s biggest appeal, of course, is its flexibility, when you have the proper technical knowledge. However, I very much doubt either can best Apple at hardware-software integration even by limiting their hardware support: They just don’t have that experience.
As I live in Beijing China, there is more and more people using Mac. And around the world in the community of designers, Mac is a dominate choice. It might be a coincidence, but it seems people more turn to Mac when their life quality becomes better. That might reveal some truth. As people always pursuit better life quality and in average they succeed in certain degree, would it say Mac has a brighter future than PC? And if people choose alternative to Mac would it say it is the overall economic environment? Different individuals may have their own reason but in statistic I think it is not a pure coincidence.
In Asia people deliberately buy expensive designer brand products. It has almost nothing to do with quality. It is to show how wealthy you are.
In some societies it is considered very vulgar to own conspicuous “designer” products or clothing with logos.
In Asia people buy apparently expensive branded items…whose authenticity might well be questioned…
Your point is quiet questionable. For any population large enough, I don’t think the irrational mind would be dominant. And people who owning luxuries blindly usually not the same people who use computer daily. And my point is not based on who or how many own Mac, but instead who are really using Mac (actually I don’t know if they really buy the machine, but I think it is almost impossible all people using Mac got the machine from their company, and if so, the same applies more to people owning PC).
I have seen counterfeit Ipods for sale. It is almost certain they are also making fake Macs somewhere in China
Ah, I suppose Pystar is at U.S.
No I meaan fake Mac laptops that look exactly like the real thing.
Then you mean nothing. What you say does not exists in this universe.
I am looking for a desktop replacement that is well made, has a nice screen, and performs well. I love apple products, and am completely head over heels in love with the top spec 17″ MBP in terms of design.
What I am buying very soon is a VAIO VGN-AW120D. Why? Slightly bigger screen, slightly heavier, but 1000$ cheaper. Other then that, there is virtually no difference in terms of components (other then DDR2 vs DDR3, but I would rather have less latency over higher mhz anyways, thank you very much).
Maybe if I had more portability needs I would be looking at the MBP more, but honestly, I cannot justify spending a third more for something slightly prettier (sony does make a pretty machine), an apple logo on the back, and the right to run OSX.
That MS “report” is total BS, but hey, most of the apple ads recently have been pretty BS too. That doesn’t mean that both sides do not have very valid points.
Source: http://daringfireball.net/2008/10/listen_to_tim_cook
Listen to Tim Cook
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
One thing Apple knows is what it does. Apple designs and produces very nice things. All this hubbub over low-cost laptops is outside the realm of what makes Apple Apple.
There has long been, especially in the business press, a strong bias towards encouraging Apple to act like a ^aEURoenormal^aEUR computer company. Remember when it was common for analysts to call for Apple to break itself apart into separate software and hardware companies? Or for Apple to obtain a license for Windows and make ^aEURoewell-designed^aEUR Windows PCs. Or for Apple to sell licenses for Mac OS X to Dell?
A lot of the current action in laptops, industry-wide, is at the low end of the market. Some of these machines look pretty interesting. None of them look like something Apple would make.
But yet there was (and is) this consensus that given current industry trends, combined with the rather shaky (to say the least) state of the global economy, well of course, what Apple needed to do was cheapen its MacBook lineup. Exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C.
What Apple announced Tuesday was exactly the opposite. Instead of making them cheaper, they made them better. Dramatic performance improvements in graphics, and a significant leap forward in industrial design and build quality. Cheap laptops creak and squeak at the seams. Apple^aEURTMs new MacBooks are cut from solid blocks of aluminum and hardly have any seams.
Apple doesn^aEURTMt make computers that people have to buy. They make computers that people want to buy.
The ^aEURoenetbook^aEUR market is an entirely different game. Apple may well go there eventually, but it won^aEURTMt be for another year or two, and then when they do, it will drive the PC press nuts because Steve Jobs will announce it in such a way that makes it seem as though Apple invented the entire product category.
(ASIDE: I think ^aEUR” and this is nothing more than my own speculation here ^aEUR” that it^aEURTMs more likely that a hypothetical really small (as in much smaller than even the Air), really cheap (as in less than $700) notebook computer from Apple would not be a Mac. It^aEURTMd run some variant of ^aEURoeOS X^aEUR of course, but I think it^aEURTMd resemble a hot-rodded big-screen iPhone with a keyboard, not a stripped down small-screen MacBook. The iPhone OS would run faster on a $600 netbook than it does on an actual iPhone. Mac OS X would run slower, probably a lot slower. Apple builds things up, not down. Just my hunch. (Also: It^aEURTMs too bad Apple has already used the name ^aEURoeiBook^aEUR.))
Higher performance and improved build quality are in direct opposition to lower prices. These guys calling for $800 Apple notebooks have the company all wrong. To me, the most interesting part of yesterday^aEURTMs event had nothing to do with product announcements, but rather was COO Tim Cook^aEURTMs ^aEURoestate of the Mac^aEUR segment at the beginning.
This was Apple speaking directly to its investors and to the business press. Apple wants them to understand the Mac business. Cook outlined six main points which he claims Apple believes are the reasons behind the four-year-long growth in Mac sales:
1. Better computers
2. Better software
3. Compatibility
4. Vista
5. Marketing
6. Retail Stores
^aEURoeYou may wonder,^aEUR Cook said, ^aEURoewhy is Vista on the list. I think it^aEURTMs fair to say that Vista hasn^aEURTMt lived up to everything Microsoft had hoped it would. And consequently, it^aEURTMs opened doors for a lot of people to consider switching to the Mac.^aEUR1
What does not appear on that list is price. This is not to say price is irrelevant to the Mac, or that Apple is somehow immune to the circumstances of the economy, but simply that price is not and has never been one of the main factors in the Mac^aEURTMs success. Cook^aEURTMs list isn^aEURTMt marketing bullshit ^aEUR” it^aEURTMs an accurate, succinct description of Apple^aEURTMs computer business.
Other PC makers fight viciously over pricing because it^aEURTMs the only factor on which they can differentiate. Few of them bother trying to make better computers ^aEUR” most just build bland, junky wrappers around Intel^aEURTMs reference chipsets. (Notable exceptions in the laptop space include Sony and Lenovo.) None can offer better software because they all ship the same version of Windows. They^aEURTMre stuck with Vista. They all seem, for whatever reason, incapable of producing Apple-level marketing and advertising. And none of them who^aEURTMve tried have been able to do their own retail stores successfully. Price is all they have.
Cook then showed two pie charts. One showing the Mac^aEURTMs unit share in the U.S. retail market at 18 percent, up from ^aEURoea single digit number, just a few years ago^aEUR. Cook then drops the kicker, the single key point you need to grasp to understand Apple^aEURTMs Macintosh business: ^aEURoeAnd what^aEURTMs more impressive than this is if you look at revenue share. Because we focus on fully-featured systems, and we don^aEURTMt compromise on quality, our revenue share is over 31 percent. That means that one out of every three dollars that^aEURTMs spent on computers in U.S. retail is spent on the Macintosh. What a difference a few years makes.^aEUR
31 percent of the money on 18 percent of the unit sales. Those numbers are stunning ^aEUR” and they would not get more impressive by selling $800 MacBooks. Yesterday^aEURTMs entire event, the whole thing, could be summarized by these five words from Cook: ^aEURoeWe don^aEURTMt compromise on quality.^aEUR
—
1. Cook really rubbed this point in, putting up a slide and reading aloud this quote from Peter Burrows of BusinessWeek:
^aEURoeVista looks like it could turn out to be one of the greatest missteps in tech history.^aEUR
The executive-level rivalry between Microsoft and Apple seems to be at the highest level since the John Sculley era at Apple.
I always thought Microsoft was a software company, it is stupid on Microsoft’s part to attack Apple. I have used Vista on iMac and it was bloody fast (comparing to PCs), how does it matter to Microsoft if people are switching from IBM PCs to macs as long as they use Microsoft Windows. Apple makes bootcamp driver 32bit and 64 bit for Vista, which in my opinion benefits both Microsoft and Apple. In my office we have one Mac Pro and four iMacs all running OS X triple boot with Linux and Vista. One of the many reasons that contribute to people buying Apple machines is Apple switching over to Intel. Microsoft Office is still the most sought popular application on OS X, does that not say something. Microsoft should realize they are here to make money and not wage some sort of holy war.
I think this whole tactic is just a reflection of Steve Ballmer, he’s definitely in the whole holy war thing I think.
This campaign is a not so subtle hint to Apple that MS will tolerate them having a 10% marketshare but no more. MS saved Apple in 1998 by a very public display of confidence and a $150 million cash injection to prevent antitrust actions. This is no longer necessary as MS can argue convincingly that they now have OSS as a competitor.
If Apple gets too confident MS will simply stop developing Office For Mac. If Apple still don’t get the hint MS will get very serious indeed. MS didn’t make it to the top by having a better product. They made it because they are absolutely ruthless.
They did do it by having a better product – better by far than the combination of Classic running on Motorola or PPC chips. Being better, however, was not about being prettier or meeting Apple enthusiasts idea of being easier to use or learn. Windows was better in at least these respects:-
— it would run on hardware from lots of vendors, and the hardware was better quality. Remember the 4400? The Performas? Apple hardware was just total crap.
— it rapidly acquired deployment and networking tools for corporates
— it was cheaper (its service packs were free)
— the hardware it ran on was way cheaper and faster
— it had such basic things as protected memory
— it had lots of first class development tools
It was better. People bought it because it was better suited to their needs. And they also bought it because Apple forced them to buy it. Apple was always running out of supply, was always forcing people to buy both computers and peripherals and accessories from one limited and overpriced source. They simply could not supply the demand, and they would not let anyone else supply it. The result was, buyers found there was a superior product (one that was more cost effective and a better fit to their needs) than the Apple offering, and bought it.
After the fact, people lament the anti competitive tactics of MS. But what permitted those anti competitive tactics was that the product and the demand for the product supported them. You or I operating out of our garage try that stuff, and people would laugh at us. When MS did it, people listened, because they had the products and the market demand.
I was a Mac devotee back in the days of Classic, and well remember buying my first XP machine. It was less than half the price of the Mac I was thinking about, more than twice the speed, more than double the memory and storage. It simply flew. And it ran way cooler. XP also was way ahead of Classic, OS9 as it then was. It was no contest, it was stop the fight now before someone gets hurt. Game over.
Of course MS had a better product. And carried on having a better product through early versions of OSX. Have you forgotten just what a dog those early versions were?
What are you talking about? Apple service packs are also free.
In the mid 80s Apple had the advantage over PCs in both OS and hardware. Apple should have been able to easily beat MS but their outrageous prices and inflexibility made that impossible.
By the late 90s Apple hardware was absolute crap and OS9 was a farce. I had a Mac LC630 which was complete and utter junk. I later went from a Mac 7100/66 to a 1GHz Athlon with Win2000 which was infinitely better.
I have been a Linux only user for about five or six years now.
This would only make sense if XP had carved Microsoft’s empire out of OS9’s previously staggering market share, which of course is absurd. XP and OS9 were just their respective companies treading water, making incremental improvements to the product, and having no appreciable impact on their long since established positions in the market. If you want to argue Microsoft got to the top out of superior hardware and software offerings, the comparisons run much longer:
8088 vs. m68k
DOS vs. Mac/Lisa/Amiga
Windows 3.0 vs. OS/2 and Mac
NT 4.0 vs. Unix
Pentium I and II vs. PPC
Windows 95 vs. MacOS 7
Windows 98 vs. BeOS
Windows 2000 vs. NeXTSTEP
Microsoft won all those battles in the market but didn’t offer the superior product for any of them. That’s because it was business strategies (many unethical) unrelated to product quality that decided Microsoft’s command of the industry. Their tactics are well-documented, significant topics including IBM, copy killing, EEE, DirectX, Java, Quicktime, Netscape, and “partner”.
Edit: Last paragraph removed because the parent more or less addressed it, but to clarify the reason why I posted to begin with, Apple was never Microsoft’s only competitor, and anywhere Microsoft’s offering ended up being superior, it didn’t start out that way. They had the tech consumers on a string buying into their vapor promises of catching up to others’ innovations, and Intel and the whole hardware industry struggling to push more megahertz into the inferior designed x86 line. Other products were always doing things better, which in the very early days included price, but MS had the better business strategy.
Edited 2009-04-11 22:12 UTC
Microsoft won nothing. 90% MS users never heard that computer can work without windows. Microsoft “invented” PC and internet.
There is no internet: there is microsoft internet explorer. Other things can damage your windows system. <- This is way of microsoft of doing things. And still almost nothing changed in 22 years.
Edited 2009-04-12 10:00 UTC
Any one who ever tried iWork, not think about Office any more. And this is not the world as the last century where .doc is everywhere. More and more things are exchanged by PDF and Wiki-like content system.
Everybody keeps saying that Mac OS X is so great and user friendly… But, uhm, why on EARTH, then, can I not easily disable hardware drivers if I want to?
My PowerMac’s on-board audio chip is broken, and I want to prevent possible kernel panics by making sure the OS doesn’t load the driver. In Windows, this takes like three clicks. On Mac OS X, I have to first find out what kernel extensions power the audio chip, then I have to delete them, and then I have to make a few mods so that the next software update doesn’t re-enable the chip.
What I mean to say is that Mac OS X is a great operating system – as long as you stick to the use cases set out by His Steveness. Deviate from that line, and you’re on your own.
With Windows and Linux, this simply isn’t the case. They cater to infinitely more use cases than Mac OS X, and while they may not be as good as Mac OS X *in the specific use cases of Mac OS X*, they sure as hell are a lot more versatile and flexible.
Edited 2009-04-10 08:08 UTC
“What I mean to say is that Mac OS X is a great operating system – as long as you stick to the use cases set out by His Steveness. Deviate from that line, and you’re on your own.
With Windows and Linux, this simply isn’t the case. They cater to infinitely more use cases than Mac OS X, and while they may not be as good as Mac OS X *in the specific use cases of Mac OS X*, they sure as hell are a lot more versatile and flexible. ”
Come on, do you really think that this kind or argument makes any sense? I don’t think so. How can you say that when actually nothing prevent you to use OS X basically the way you want. I mean it what you say is true, why then can i use my mac in a UNIX way? I am sure that Jobs is not really a big Unix style interface fan.
Removing a kext is not something that normal user would do, but still that’s something that OS X allows you to do, so why then it is not flexible and versatile? It allows you to do it, right? I mean you speak of lack of versatility and flexibility when a system like OS X allows you to recompile the kernel and boot up on an customized kernel. This is what i would call versatility or flexibility.
Now, given that in windows you can remove such components more easily (well according to you), that’s does not mean that it is good in any way. First, it is not trivial for the normal user in windows either, as he/she still needs to figure what to remove. Plus, is that secure? I hear to much people having a totally unusable system after trying to do such operations.
I would say that allowing this operations to be possible but not trivially so that the user can’t do crazy thing, is the way to go, and that’s what OS X offers. You may disagree, but that’s what proper engineering decision would do.
You really didn’t get what I was saying, right?
Mac OS X is a great operating system, but only when you use it in such a way as Apple has set out for you. Within the Apple way, Mac OS X is probably better than Windows and Linux. The problem, however, is that every user is different, and not every user uses its computer in the Apple way. And that’s when the crying starts.
I now have to find out which kexts are used by the on-board audio chip, delete them, and then create empty kexts with the same name, and put them back where I deleted the other ones to prevent the auto-update mechanism from re-enabling them again. Only in Applezealotland can this be called a “good thing”.
Your argument about “disabling hardware should be difficult to protect users” is just plain apologetic. Modern operating systems have privileges for that. It is inexcusable for Apple not to include a device manager-type of panel, which gives a nice password dialog the moment you try to do something potentially dangerous.
You know, LIKE EVERY OTHER OPERATING SYSTEM.
Edited 2009-04-10 09:06 UTC
Any operating system more or less like that. And OS X is less in this way than many others. Not like some OS of arrogant style, OS X is not afraid to adopt widely-accepted standard like PDF.
And OS X is in a large part UNIX. If we choose one OS that enforces least to the user’s style, it would be UNIX.
Firstly, your argument will also apply to many linux distributions, which certainly has to cater to a wider variety of hardware than Apple and definitely has a greater need to offer an easy way to disable hardware.
Secondly, as I have mentioned before, Apple offers a limited line of hardware, most with no internal expandability options (you can disable external peripherals by simply unplugging them). Therefore the scenario you have described is really a rare usage case. I would rather Apple to spend their effort streamlining common usage cases than wasting their time optimizing rare usages (same idea as the 90-10 optimization rule for programming)
Edited 2009-04-10 17:05 UTC
More on the Mac Pro comparison.
The point is that the study tries to compare a Mac Pro to a mid-range home system, a HP Pavilion desktop. The study says that a modern Xeon workstation is feature-equivalent to a mid-range home system with a previous-generation Core 2 Quad processor and slower graphics. Does anyone really realize the type of non-sense that it is?
I mean they compare the Mac Pro, a computer that can hold 32 GB of Ram, 4 TB of storage, than can drive 8 30 inch monitors at the same time, that has 8 processing cores, two independent gigabit ethernet ports, multiple firewire 800 ports, supports SAS disks and ultra fast RAID and has a industry best internal design. They compare this sort of machine to this:
[url]http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/series_can.do;HHOJSID=G1…]
A system that holds no more than 8 GB of slow memory, no more than 1 TB of slow storage and which is just ridiculously weak in comparison to a Mac Pro. How can even the comparison be even done? Those machines can’t be compared to each other, they simply don’t play in the same market. Trying to argue that this poor mid range desktop can compete against a Mac Pro is plain idiocy.
What kind of non sense Microsoft is up to? This is simply disinformation, something that this company has proven many times that it can do very well, much better than designing cool products.
Just that point makes this Apple tax argument totally meaningless, i mean, if i compare a Dell Precision or a workstation product from HP itself to this HP pavillion, with the huge difference in price, should i conclude that i can speak of a Dell Tax or a HP Tax, or something like this?
I don’t think this sort of practice can be beneficial to Microsoft, as it just make them appear plain idiots doubled with incompetence. They will attract more dislikes to them because of their way of using anything to spread their message, even if it lacks total professionalism.
-It’s the ‘Vista runs smoothly on a 1GB rig’ argument all over the place …
One would have thought they’d learn …
Someone should take their study, and add Linux to the comparison… When the hardware costs are the same, but the software costs are zero Linux will come out ahead every time.
Assuming an OEM goes for a completely free distribution instead of something like Xandros or Linspire, Linux isn’t entirely free. There is 1) higher support cost, and 2) higher rate of return.
And considering an OEM license of Home Premium hovers around $40 for whitebox makers without a licensing contract with Microsoft, it is hard to see how Linux can compete on price in the OEM market.
I can totally envision someone buying a PC because there isn’t a Mac that serve the need and budget of a consumer. But I don’t know any customer cheap enough to forgo, say, $40, for a Linux laptop as opposed to a Windows laptop.
Yet with all these ads you get the feeling they are desperate, grasping for air. Why?
Can’t MSFT compete? Is it too hard for them to adjust to the competition? Do they expect to go unchallenged forever and ever until the end of time?
Edited 2009-04-10 09:18 UTC
I think it’s going to back-fire for Microsoft. In the minds of many people, these ads will probably create the impression that they’re not only going after the “little guy,” but also trying kick ‘im while he’s down.
One thing that’s been obvious to me for a very long time is how vastly different the two companies are regarding what they actually sell. Microsoft is primarily a software company with a recent shift towards selling services. Apple, on the other hand, touts themselves as mainly a hardware company, with a long history of selling services and software to support their hardware customers. This puts Microsoft in the awkward position of having to do battle on uneven ground. They must not only defend their technically inferior operating system, they also are required to argue the case for the countless manufacturers of hardware they themselves do not sell. It’s an uphill battle all the way and I’m not surprised they are still resorting to FUD tactics to even stand a chance of keeping customers.
As an aside, I think it’s pretty hilarious that people still regard Apple computers as junky, slow, incompatible beasts compared to the utter crap spewed forth from the generic PC world. Apple earned that bad reputation back in the dark days of the 90s, but since 1999 they have only gotten better. Nowadays I won’t use a Windows OS if I can help it; if I buy a computer it’s Apple and if I build one it runs BSD or linux.
The MS ads might do some good by pressuring Apple to stop nickle-and-diming its customers, especially its professional customers. It’s time for them to realize that 4GB RAM is anemic for a $2800 notebook and consumer-level video cards don’t belong on workstations.
Also, hopefully the switch to Nehalem, which makes 3rd party integrated graphics non-viable due to the on-die memory controller, combined with Apple’s need to push out OpenCL, will also prompt them to include discrete graphics across their product line. IGPs just don’t belong on a desktop over $1000.
Edited 2009-04-10 20:29 UTC
just retarded. I mean they should just stick to attacking them through the advertisements. Any more and it’s no more fun.
Also; it’s not exactly “OS tax” — that is much more in case of windows as compared to mac — Leopard + iLife costs less than Home Premium (and virus scanners, the free ones are good nuff…). Rather, it’s platform tax..
I had gone to buy a computer.. and found that there are so many computers available for windows.. dell , hp , thosiba , acer etc..
1. ) suppose dell remove one motherboardfor $100 otherside ace/hp/etc.. will remove same motherboard for lesser price just to beat dell.. these way pc is cheap.. Where as on mac , hardware is expensive but if you see it will run faster and smoothly than windows… just give a try on intel machine which you can get on torrent. if you like than buy the OSX
2. ) i agree windows is easy to use for new user but when virus attack new user wont come to know what is wrong. you need a anti virus to remove it. In mac if vvirus enters just delete the file from application or where it stored.. no need additional anti software to uninstall..
3. ) windows xp or vista or later version does not support fat 32 with higher capacity hard drive .. just check it.. where else in mac it is fully supported try to copy any higher capacity file into fat formatted drive…
I have only just registered and came to the site from a comment I found in a search engine not the previous few comments I am sure. The comment was saying that most people are not so cheap as to begrudge paying the microsoft fee for software. Having recently moved from microsoft and all the associated hassles I have had with them I just wanted to say that money for me was not the issue, really I would not go back to microsoft if I was given the software.
In 2006 I bought a lease return PowerBook G4 with 1.5 gig memory, 2 extra new replacement batteries, new fixed hard drive internal, new fixed DVDR burner, new screen (all done under applecare before the computer came out of lease) for 810 USD from the company I worked for at the time. I have since upgraded the internal drive to 320 gig, the memory to 2 gig, got a 20 dollar USB eyeball webcam. I use only opensourced software to develop or apples own dev tools that come with 10.4.11 (nope, don’t use 10.5 and likely won’t use 10.6). Total cost to me each day I use this computer (electricity and netconnectivity are free to me due to where I live) is about 1.50 USD per day. This gets me no down time with virus, no down time learning to use Microsoft products, few headaches from configuration problems with MS and third party products. In the end, this all comes down to how much is my time worth. The answer, much more than what I spend messing around getting MS software to work.