OSNews

I don't spend any time keeping my windows system secure and I don't have any problems. It's behind a firewall, I don't use IE or outlook.

Macs are expensive to me because all I want is the hardware and the OS, I don't want all the bundled software. The only software I buy is an occasional game, the rest is freeware.

My Mum's laptop is behind two firewalls (the routers and Windows XP's own), has an automatically updated Virus checker, Windows update is set to automatic and she uses Firefox and Thunderbird. Yet every month or two I have to spend a couple of days getting rid of viruses and spyware.

If you are spending time removing viruses when you have antivirus software installed, you are obviously doing something wrong. At the very least, you need to change the software. And some of the more recent ones alos scan for spywares so essentially no user intervention. Not sure what you are upto.

and we all know that antivirus and spyware removal always works

I would rather not worry about it myself.

I suggest you nip over to CastleCops and see just what lengths you have to go to to get rid of some of the smarter viruses and Trojans these days.

http://castlecops.com/f67-Hijackthis_Spyware_Viruses_Worms_Trojans_...

There are loads of malware that can only be removed by running the virus checker or anti-spyware in safe mode, with that automatic system repair thing switched off or it automatically reinstalls the virus. That has to be done MANUALLY which involves me wasting my time. Now you may be a smarty clogs who only visits OSnews (assuming you don't have port 80 closed off) but my Mother isn't she surf's all over the place, she downloads screen savers, games, images of seahorses she found through Google. Tell her to stop doing it, she asks why I bought her a beeping computer for.

All it takes is one downloader in the sweet spot between the Virus being released and Virus checker being updated to catch it or the vunerablilty being patched and you're stuffed as it downloads the next version of the virus which avoids detection constantly keeping the virus ahead of the virus checkers. Before you know it your desktop is covered in links to hardcore porn sites.

"My Mum's laptop is behind two firewalls (the routers and Windows XP's own), has an automatically updated Virus checker, Windows update is set to automatic and she uses Firefox and Thunderbird. Yet every month or two I have to spend a couple of days getting rid of viruses and spyware."

You are either lying through your teeth in order to make a fanatically anti-Windows statement, or you are not that technically competent and really don't know what you're doing.

My wife's PC is behind the router's firewall. I have decided to not set up an anti-virus program for her, because I know what I'm doing and I don't like the performance sapping effects of anti-virus software. I also disable Windows update because, again, I know what I'm doing. Windows vulnerabilities cannot be exploited when the exploiter cannot see the PC. Frequent updates are for the paranoid and skittish. It's as simple as that.

I have her use Firefox and Outlook Express. She has NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NO issues with malware and spyware. Internet Explorer vulnerabilities cannot be exploited when that browser isn't being used. It's as simple as that.

I then explain to her that cookies aren't spyware, and a lot of people try to make them scarier than they really are in order to make a buck. And then of course there are some nerds who don't know any better and help such people propagate fear. Frankly, it's a massive pile of stinkin' stupidity.

We still live in a rational universe. Malware authors can't infect your machine by magic. That's the bottom line. Chew on that for a while.

That's exactly how I feel about Linux.

I don't have to spend any extra time keeping my Linux systems secure. They're stable and quick and easy to setup, for me. And the hardware costs less than Apple's for similar performance.

And you have to admit a lifetime of free software, upgrades, updates, patches, new features, etc. is a heck of a deal.

My mom has a windows system. Somehow she lost her video drivers and spent the last few months trying to use the system at 640x480 at 16 colors. She wanted to buy a new computer because she thought this one was broken. For people like that I can understand the need for a Mac and the money and time they could save using one.

For everyone else I can't understand why they'd spend anywhere from 50% to 100% more for the hardware, just to run an OS that will cost them an additional $120 a year for updates. They could afford to upgrade twice as often in the PC/Linux world, or afford twice the commercial software to run on top their basic system and OS.

The only thing the Mac offered me was the opportunity to work with PPC arch, RISC assembly, PPC Linux, etc. Other than the CPU the Mac is basicly the same as my PC. But it looks like the future Macs will be almost exactly the same, only cost twice as much.

Quoth the nonny mouse

I don't have to spend any extra time keeping my Linux systems secure.

And how much time did you spend to get Wireless G working?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

How about just plain jane Wireless B?

(I mean, I've thrown in the towel on ever getting my Airport card [wireless B] *ever* working under Ubunutu.)

And how much time did you spend to get Wireless G working?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Never had any problems here. Maybe you bought some bad hardware?

The wireless card for my laptop cost me like $50 and just worked, drivers were already included with my Linux distro, Slackware.

All my desktop systems don't have wireless, but their network cards are always fully supported by Linux. Never had any problems getting an ethernet card to work with Linux. At least not since kernel 1.x.

For the hardware I purchase, now keep in mind I'm a computer professional, I know what hardware is and what hardware I should purchase and how much I expect to pay for it, so I always get a good deal. For the hardware I purchase I don't have any problems using it with Linux. I don't make impulse buys on shiny computer gadgets, so I never have Winmodem type problems on Linux.

I also save on average about 50% the cost of Mac hardware for the same specs, performance, features, etc. Plus all the software costs of either a Windows or OSX system, which can be considerable.

All software, nomatter who sells it, has bugs. Its too complex not to. But mine costs me $0 initially and $0 for all bug fixes for as long as I use that software.

And it has no limits.

Would your software vendor bend or break the law to give you fair use access to DRM media? Would your software vendor give you full access to their source code with the option to redistribute and sell it? Would your software vendor give you the next release of your OS for free?

I see how much you're willing to pay for how they treat you today. How much would you be willing to pay for the same level of support we get from Free Software, like Linux, from Apple or Microsoft? $10/month? $20? $120?

Keep in mind when doing these comparisons there are some things money can't buy. For everything else, Apple and Microsoft are willing to charge you as much as you're willing to pay for it.

But I will always be getting the same functionality at at least half the price. If we are competing against eachother, as all people in our society are, this means you either need to make more money, or break the law and steal, to keep up with us Linux Joneses.

This is what Sybil Fawlty called "Stating the bleeding obvious."

Yes, but apparantly there are many to whom this isn't all that obvious; hence all the discussions and flamewars on this subject...

Sometimes one must state the obvious to make it clear.

This is what Sybil Fawlty called "Stating the bleeding obvious.

That's because what is obvious is subjective too.

Except standing in a torrential downpour and not noticing it's raining. You'd have to be pretty far gone to find that non-obvious.

It was Basil who said that, not Sybil,

Sadly, I'm still using my PC from 2001. Works fine, though, so that's a good thing.

My "low-end" $500 PC from 2001 works just fine on the XP that came preinstalled. Not to mention, even in 2001, $500 got you a monitor, keyboard and mouse. I think that beats any price or durability claims from the Mac side. I realise this anecdotal but then so is the parent post. So as valid as that, I guess.

Or maybe it's because its so expensive you can't afford to replace it as often (j/k)

My main PC (toshiba laptop) is circa 1999 and is doing fine.

expensive - Bringing a large price.

From the Concise English Dictionary:

"Expensive - commanding a high price, costly"

You see, whether or not something's price is high is subjective-- that is what I tried to make clear! To me, gas in the US is cheap, very cheap-- however, most Americans will disagree with me.

Why is US gas cheap to me?

Because we Dutch pay 1.45E per litre. Do some maths and you'll see how expensive we are on that.

"Bringing a large price" - Exactly-- for you Americans, gas now brings a large price. Yet, I find your gas prices not high at all.

See where I'm getting at?

well, Americans also use more gas than you all in europe because we built our cities and neighborhoods with the idea that you drive everywhere. in europe, you have resources nearer your homes, or your homes are nearer the resources, so a bike ride or a walk is not out of the question.

on top of that, the idiot in office thinks that fuel efficiency is a measure of how much money an oil company can get in a year from one driver.

Thom, your analogy only works when applied to Gas because Gas is gas anywhere you find it. Its not a perception issue at all because Gas can indeed be more expensive in one area as compared to another.

Macs and PCs on the other hand can indeed be compared equally across the board with hardware software and OS.

You, like so many others before you are equating the PCs increased flexability to buy less and spend less with being less expensive.

Remember most people simply tend to think of hardware vs hardware. If, however, you add the software stack necessary to put the two machines on par then the price difference shrinks incredibly (not to mention the fact the the Mac software integrates much better than the PC software). If, on top of that, you add the extra time it takes to administer the boxes, many people would assert that the value (or TCO if you will) is much better for the Mac.

So, to reiterate Thom's point, whether a Mac is expensive or not is very subjective.

I really don't know what software you are adding to PCs (with probably the exception of antivirus softwares, which are recommended but not essential for Macs) that are more expensive in PCs versus Macs?

He means bundled stuff on the Mac that you'd have to buy on Windows. I've seen Windows laptops with DVD drives that don't come with DVD players!

Also you get iLife with every new Mac, this is an incredible value. If you try to get serveral Software Titles for Windows that do exactly the same you'd have to pay far more than for the iLife package and it still wouldn't be remotely as integrated and easy to use as the iLife software package.

But then the term "Large price" is in itself relative. To someone making a million dollars a year $3,000 dollars for a top of the line Mac is cheap. Which proves the authors point.

Kelly, I am a mac user (well a general computer user who has a liking to mac OS X)

please shut up!!! your comments are becoming cliche!

>"your comments are becoming cliche!"

Almost as much as those comments that insinuate that the Mac is more expensive... or that its increased value is the result of its prettier case rather than actually giving you more for the money.

Well !
I think that if grampa does not need a Ferrari does not mean the Ferrari has no value .....

A Ferrari is something quite extraordinary when compared to a Ford. But you can't apply the same comparison to a Mac: a Mac is no Ferrari, it is something worth slightly more because of a better OS. It is like comparing 2 Fords, one of them has a better engine. Apart from that they are the same.

Actually...it's more like comparing two Fords, one of them with a more efficient engine [processor] and easier-to-use controls [GUI], as well as more factory-installed options [iLife, DVD player, etc] and a better warranty [better support]. Yeah, you're gonna pay more, but it's a nice ride for your money.

;)

kellym, I own a Mac and I really like OS X. But what you said is a load of crap. Macs ARE more expensive if you only count the initial cost (i.e. not the cost of wasting time maintaining your box).

I currently own a Mac Mini 1.42GHz, 512Mb RAM and 80Gb HD, no DVD burner as well as an Athlon 64 3200 with 1GB RAM, 6600GT, duel layer DVD burner, 200Gb Hd.
Guess what? The PC cost less then the Mac Mini and I bought them both at the same time (roughly at the time when Mac Minis first came out in Australia).
Regardless of whether or not you take into account the software I got with the Mac (pretty much just OS X and iLife) the PC is cheaper even though the Mac Mini is hardware wise seriously out of date.

Now if you're going to argue that you pay premium for the form factor, you have a point there. But Mac Mini is simply THE cheapest Mac there is. To get a Mac with the same specs as my PC at the time when I bought it would have cost at the very least 2.5 times the price I paid.
In fact a top of the line PC is cheaper then a top of the line Power Mac despite having better hardware (Mac hardware usually lags a bit behind PC hardware - PC stuff is always released first and is also always cheaper).

So no, Apple does not give you more. You really are paying just for the Mac being more refined.
A Windows PC with the exact same specs in hardware and software is ALWAYS cheaper then a comparable Mac.
At least thats how things stand now and have stood in the past. What the future might bring is open to speculation.

The problem with the article is that he is making it sound like these issues surround perceptions of value when in fact prices can by compared based on specs. When that happens the prices come out to be the same and sometimes the Mac costing less. His article confuses the issue even more.

"I personally fall into the category of those that think a Mac is worth the cost"

Again, its not an issue of feelings... the an accurate comparison can be made

"If you have $400 to spend on a computer you can't buy a mac. They are too expensive."

You mean less flexible. Too expensive implies that you can get the same or more for your money if you buy the alternative... yet Macs cost the same (or less) when you match the Windows PC with the same (or as close as possible) OS, hardware and bundled software without substitutions or omissions.

Indeed you can, and it will run Linux. But will it run Windows LEGALLY? Will be as silent and small as a Mac Mini or will it be a noisy, generic box?

As usual, lots pf Windows users compare prices and "forgets" the cost of software since they have this "inofficial" copy. When that's the case, why bother comparing prices at all since you obviously don't intend to do so on an equal footing?

/Lennart

If all I want to do is drive to work and back what does the DB9 give me over some econobox for it's huge price tag? Do I get better mileage? No. Will I get to work faster? No, not unless the freeways were empty and police didn't care how fast I drove (not gonna happen). Is it cheaper to maintain? No.

For me there is no advantage to getting an Aston Martin to commute to work but there are a lot of disadvantages. Once again, whether or not something is worth the price tag is entirely subjective.

Many would counter that a Mac does have dual CPUs (although not dual GPUs), extra cooling, an ultra-quiet setup and an innovative desktop/application management design. It's all subjective.

ps - Although I kind of ripped on the Aston Martin, I only did it to make a point. The DB9 is a beautiful piece of machinery and well worth it's price tag.

If all I want to do is drive to work and back what does the DB9 give me over some econobox for it's huge price tag?

What does it give you over some econobox? Easy - dates with HOT CHICKS! No chick even a tad over warm will look at you twice as you cruise by in your econobox, but red hot chicks will be allllllll over you with the DB9.

[quote]A mac could be considered a Aston Martin DB9 if they only came with dual CPU/GPU, extra cooling, an ultraquiet setup and invative desktop/application management design.[/quote]

Macs do have dual CPUs, extra cooling, ultraquiet setup, and innovative desktop/application management design. Where have you been for the last 5 years?

Typical PC user. Has never used a Mac. Doesn't know what's inside, and probably doesn't know that he can quit all the rediculous frustration of Windows simply by going to Linux (probably doesn't know what Linux is).

Do some research guy. The refrain from talking any way.

You could have at least looked at my posting history, you fool. Why would I even go to a site called osnews.com if I didn't know what I am talking about.

Of course I have used Linux.

Ridiculous Frustration of Windows? Like? Within 30 min I can setup my windows installation to be literally perfect in terms of productivity and ease of use (only applies to me of course). Perhaps you should do some research and find out that it isn't as hard as you think to turn windows into a decent system. The only problems you can't solve is core issues like shitty scheduling.

The point I was making is that Mac doesn't offer all that much for its price. Its all hype and good looking case. For the same price I can build you a system with better performance and features and case will look good too.

"The point I was making is that Mac doesn't offer all that much for its price."

How can you say that when a Mac cost the same as an equally spec'd PC... and often times will even cost less.



"Its all hype and good looking case."

Thats simply not true. Sure, the cost is more attractive, but thats just icing on the cake for a computer that is already priced the same or less than a comperably equipped PC.



"For the same price I can build you a system with better performance and features and case will look good too."

You can build a PC for less, but only by equipping it with less (or different) parts.

"The point I was making is that Mac doesn't offer all that much for its price. Its all hype and good looking case. For the same price I can build you a system with better performance and features and case will look good too."

Macs used to be really, really far ahead of Windows. No question.

Now? Not anymore. Today's Macs have a few nice features but nothing truly compelling. You can get close to Spotlight with Google Desktop 2.0 (but not quite there because Spotlight is tightly integrated into the system). Its former dominance in graphics and desktop publishing is no more. I can do just as good a job with Photoshop on Windows as I can on the Mac.

Windows can even claim a few advantages over Macs. ClearType is one of them. Those who are not deluded by zealotry can see in a side-by-side comparison that font rendering on the Mac look fuzzy compared to the razor sharp fonts, even in small sizes, of the subpixel rendering of ClearType -- for the simple reason that Macs *only* do anti-aliasing and *no* subpixel manipulation on an LCD screen.

Yes, I know there is a font smoothing setting for LCD. Forget it, it ain't subpixel.

"Windows can even claim a few advantages over Macs. ClearType is one of them."

Windows can indeed claim a few advantages over Macs and vise versa, but ClearType is not one of them.

Cleartype was actually a technology that Apple pioneerd years ago for the Apple II. Here's a good article to explain the details:
http://grc.com/ctwho.htm


"Those who are not deluded by zealotry can see in a side-by-side comparison that font rendering on the Mac look fuzzy compared to the razor sharp fonts, even in small sizes, of the subpixel rendering of ClearType"

Actually, you're referring to antialiased text. The text on a Mac isn't fuzzy, but its not rigid either. The reigidness is the product of not being able to render antialiased text. Previous versions of Windows and earlier versions of Mac OS suffer from this limitation, but today's Mac and Windows machines both benefit from antialiased text.... though neither is fuzzy.

Actually Ford own Aston Martin.

http://www.ford.com/en/company/about/brands/astonMartin.htm

And your point was?

"The point is - there is no sense to pay 5x for a mac"

But you don't pay 5x more when you buy a Mac. They cost the same or less than a comperably equipped PC.

But what if I don't need a "comparably equiped" computer? What if I only need (or can only afford) a $500 machine? How about the customer having some choice?

"But what if I don't need a "comparably equiped" computer? What if I only need (or can only afford) a $500 machine? How about the customer having some choice?"

Apple sells $500 machines, but I understand your point.

You want to have increased flexability. The PC offers that it spaids while Apple gives it to you in limited configurations.

The PCs flexability advantage ought not be midigated, but it also should not be mis equated as a price advantage either.

The point is - there is no sense to pay 5x for a mac, if you can buy a pc, install Linux and accomplish everything you want using it and its desktop has all the eye candies OS X has etc etc.

There is no sense to pay 5x for a Austin DB9, if you can buy a Ford, install some chrome tires and accomplish everything you want using it and its engine has all the performance a [b]DB9[b] has etc etc.

I use all three, in different flavors, but neither linux nor windows is as powerful as OS X on the desktop. Calling it eye-candy clearly states you've never used it before, your opinion is most likely based on screenshots only.

"The point is - there is no sense to pay 5x for a mac, if you can buy a pc, install Linux and accomplish everything you want using it and its desktop has all the eye candies OS X has etc etc.
So, to all of you mac fans - shut the fuck up!!!"

Macs are big with creative types so where can I get Final Cut HD or CS2 on Linux?

HAHA thought so...

According to the previous poster, or rather the post he is replying to, Macs are more expensive because of bundled software.

So how much is my PC worth, considering that I can install hundreds of linux distributions and/or more than 20,000 apps?

And please don't come up with the pathetic excuse that linux apps are no good. They are more than good enough to me and millions of other users.

"According to the previous poster, or rather the post he is replying to, Macs are more expensive because of bundled software.

So how much is my PC worth, considering that I can install hundreds of linux distributions and/or more than 20,000 apps? "

How many millions of of apps and linux distros came bundled with your PC? Did you realize the Mac can run a large majority of those with a really nice GUI? Try ipfw on MacOSX. You won't even recognize it but even the most computer illiterate person can be walked through setting it up in less than 5 minutes.

You make a valid point, but the underlying implication it sounds as if you're trying to make is that "a PC can do the same as a Mac... so why pay more?"

But you don't pay more for a Mac, so I don't understand your point.

What do you mean you don't pay more for a Mac? Of course you do!

For the $3000 2.7Ghz Power Mac any computer geek worth his salt can build you a system with far better specs. If you don't want to build it yourself, just ask your local geek relative to do it for you. Cheaper, better and you wont be paying a $500 extra just for a name.

The whole software thing doesn't hold as well. For the average user, there is nothing the Mac offers that can't be replicated via OSS software + Linux/Windows.;l