PC vs Mac

[Snow]

Is OSX really as secure as the fanboys would have you believe? - from 2009 Neowin.net - MacBook hacked in seconds, again - via Safari exploit

Could you please specify how many in-the-wild virus infection on Macs there have been?

Once again, I'll say that a large proportion of people out there simply want a low spec computer, to do basic web browsing, word processing, watching movies and other basic non-intensive stuff. You just can't get a good value mac for those needs.

Mac mini - 500 bucks - through in a 115 dollar monitor and you've got a computer that in, total cost of ownership, comparable or better than a cheap Dell.

If the immediate up front price is the only thing that matters to you (rather than what the true cost is) then you are a PC customer and Apple is not for you.

... not that I think the Mini is the best price performance tradeoff. iMacs are the best value.

[bytebear]

You keep talking about quality of product, but the problem is, the products are the same. It's the same chips in a different box. The components are identical. Sure, you can argue service, or debate software (although you end up falling into the trap of number of apps, which Windows clearly wins, even though ironically, it's Apples greatest praise point for the iPhone - "There's an app for that") I can just see you criticizing us, or making excuses when we do the same comparison between available software for the various platforms. It's kinda hypocritical just a little, don't you think. And the Apple choir used to praise the Motorola chip over Intel, and you are still doing it, even though that argument over superior hardware (which includes performance) is dead, and you are essentially a zombie.

Edited March 20, 2010 by bytebear

[Snow]

You keep talking about quality of product, but the problem is, the products are the same. It's the same chips in a different box. The components are identical.

That's the PC mass-market-assembled-box-commodity mentality. Get a bunch of parts, throw em in a box and it's all good, right?

No, that's not right. On two counts it's not right.

1. Crack open an iMac or a Mac Pro or a Mac Air, look at the engineering and tell me it's all the same.

2. It's not the hardware dummy (not you personally - it's a saying), it's the whole experience - hardware married to OS, customer service and innovation.

Sure, you can argue service, or debate software (although you end up falling into the trap of number of apps, which Windows clearly wins, even though ironically, it's Apples greatest praise point for the iPhone - "There's an app for that") I can just see you criticizing us, or making excuses when we do the same comparison between available software for the various platforms.

You can't make up arguments you'd like me to make and then shoot holes in it. You'll note I avoided making the iPhone app argument.

It's kinda hypocritical just a little, don't you think. And the Apple choir used to praise the Motorola chip over Intel, and you are still doing it, even though that argument over superior hardware (which includes performance) is dead, and you are essentially a zombie.

Hint for you zombies (whatever you meant by that). It ain't the chip. Were it otherwise, we'd all be salivating over your brown Plays-4-Sure Zune.

If it were the chip, I'd buy an HP - I mean more than the one HP I already have.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Snow

[Mahone]

Yes - quite so. Freebsd's whooping one one hundredth of one percent is highly relevant and offer ever so much more choice to the consumer than I gave them credit for. I apologize that I had only accounted for 99.99% on the non Mac OS pc market.

Sorry - I had assumed that consumers were not restricted in their choice to what 99% of other people have chosen. Oh wait, that's because they aren't. For a lot of people, BSD and linux might not be good options. For the rest of us, they are extremely useful. It's worth mentioning that there are several versions of BSD available, and literally thousands of distros of linux, all compiled for different purposes by different people. It'd be unfair to group all of of these operating systems into one title because they use the same kernel.

Congratulations. Your behavior is both immoral and illegal.

You do not own the boot ROM code and embedded software. They are licensed to you by Apple through terms and conditions you agreed to by using the iPhone.

Choosing not to do business with a company whose terms you do not like is one thing. Agreeing to those terms and then being dishonest about it is another. I trust you are not LDS.

Illegal is debatable. Apple tells Copyright Office Jailbreaking iPhone is Illegal; Mozilla & Skype Support EFF's Request for an Exemption to the DMCA - iPhone Hacks

As far as I'm aware, the outcome of this is still pending.

As for immoral, I disagree. I hacked my phone because it is advantageous to myself. What disadvantage does it have to apple? Nothing I do on my phone due to having hacked it is illegal in and of itself. It simply allows me to take full advantage of my own phone, because apple thought I'd be too stupid to be allowed to SSH into my phone and modify it for what I want to do, not what apple tells me I want to do.

Interesting how you used this to divert attention away from my original point, to which you did not actually try and counter.

Wrong and wrong again. You claimed that the laws of competition were different for Microsoft because they are a monopoly. That is untrue. You made it up. Restrictions on Microsoft software bundling are a result of legal rulings due to Microsoft abusive practices - but hey - it's your claim. Prove it.

NO - Apple has not been forced to unbundle it's browser because it hasn't engaged in illegal antitrust abuse. Apparently you do not follow the news:

"Microsoft was formally charged with monopoly abuse by Europe's top antitrust authority, the European Commission, over the way it bundles the Internet Explorer browser with Windows.

The move follows an unsuccessful attempt by U.S. authorities nine years ago to strip Internet Explorer (IE) of its unfair advantage over competing browsers. European authorities were more successful in their prosecution of Microsoft over similar antitrust offenses five years ago, fining the company over €1.6 billion and ordering it to change the way it does business." (By Paul Meller, IDG News Service January 17, 2009)

Exactly. They were charged with monopoly abuse i.e. abuse that can only be commited by a monopoly. They used their dominant position in the OS market to push their software in other areas by including it in their operating system. This is fine, providing you are not a monopoly. This is why apple have been able to include some software bundled with OSX, while microsoft include very little nowadays.

It's also worth mentioning that the software that comes bundled with OSX is not free - we all know this. The charge is just included with the cost of OSX. So in other words, some people will be paying for software they don't necessarily want. Not everyone will want or use that software.

Ah - you missed the [very obvious] point. The alarm about Macs and the reassurance about PC was sounded years ago. Since that time computer viruses have cost PC users tens of billions of dollars and cost Mac users, well, zero.

Ignoring the less than subtle inclusion of ad hominem in your argument (I do have young cousins I could talk to in order to get this if I wanted), your point is still based on figures from 2001. I would also suggest that a large proportion of any cost incurred due to any kind of infiltration is likely down to bad system administration. In the past four years, I have been largely involved in the running of three completely separate corporate networks. On these networks, around 98% of clients are running windows. Some of the clients run mac OSX. Most of the servers are windows, though a few are either linux or OSX. So we do run multi-platform networks. While I have been helping run these networks, there has never been a virus outbreak on any of them. Occasionally a PC somewhere gets infected, but it's far from a common occurance and most of the time it takes 10 minutes to fix it. Security we implemented has prevented any virus so far from spreading.

At home, I run my own network of 12 computers in three different locations. Each location has a very old PC (between 8 and 10 years old) running a free copy of smoothwall linux. These smoothwall boxes have two purposes 1. a corporate network firewall, protecting everything behind it and 2. Linking the three networks to each other via virtual private network over the internet. I had to modify the hardware inside each box so it had two network cards (it basically acts as a very powerful router).

The remaining nine computers behind each respective smoothwall box, are a mixture of laptops and PCs. The newest laptop is two years old. The oldest is 8 years old. I have never had to replace any hardware in any of these laptops. The operating system (windows XP OEM) came with each of them. Some of the tower computers were custom built, others came pre-built. The components inside range from 10 years old to 2 years old. Every one of them has had comonents swapped between them in order for me to increase and decrease the spec of each one how I want, according to what each one is to be used for. The only bad components I had to replace was a faulty power supply unit and a dodgy monitor. A couple are used are servers, these run linux. Some of them still have the OS they were shipped with (XP). None of these computers (lapops or towers) have had any software purchased for them at any point in order to keep them running properly and securely. Everything we have wanted to do, the software was available free of charge. I've only ever had two infections of any of these computers, both of which were removed by software that is available free of charge online.

There is no way I could have had anywhere near this much freedom on macs. The freedom to do this, has saved me a small fortune on buying extra equipment.

Okay - I'll bite. What is your evidence it is no longer true. Could you post it please.

Hey it was your point. You gave evidence that an organisation believed mac users were better educated eight years ago. It's up to you to give evidence this still applies today.

Now we could argue about this until the day you die, but we won't get anywhere. There is evidence on both sides of the fence to suggest which is better, but absolutely no proof. Do you have any idea how long people have argued over this? It's not going anywhere other than attempting to enhance your ability to debate.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Mahone

[Snow]

Illegal is debatable. Apple tells Copyright Office Jailbreaking iPhone is Illegal; Mozilla & Skype Support EFF's Request for an Exemption to the DMCA - iPhone Hacks

As far as I'm aware, the outcome of this is still pending.

As for immoral, I disagree. I hacked my phone because it is advantageous to myself. What disadvantage does it have to apple? Nothing I do on my phone due to having hacked it is illegal in and of itself. It simply allows me to take full advantage of my own phone, because apple thought I'd be too stupid to be allowed to SSH into my phone and modify it for what I want to do, not what apple tells me I want to do.

It doesn't matter whether not you disagree; agreeing to terms and conditions and then unilaterally violating the agreed upon terms is immoral. Your point of view is Microsoftian - hey, we did it, therefor it has to be okay.

Read the terms of your agreement.

Interesting how you used this to divert attention away from my original point, to which you did not actually try and counter.

Dude - YOU, not me brought it up. YOU should chastise yourself for diverting attention.

Exactly. They were charged with monopoly abuse i.e. abuse that can only be commited by a monopoly. They used their dominant position in the OS market to push their software in other areas by including it in their operating system. This is fine, providing you are not a monopoly. This is why apple have been able to include some software bundled with OSX, while microsoft include very little nowadays.

It's also worth mentioning that the software that comes bundled with OSX is not free - we all know this. The charge is just included with the cost of OSX. So in other words, some people will be paying for software they don't necessarily want. Not everyone will want or use that software.

Read the ruling. Being a monopoly is not illegal. Selling bundled software is not illegal, even for monopolies. The issues it that Microsoft illegally abused it's market power and that resulted in the legal restrictions - which it continued to violate. Perhaps that is why you prefer Microsoft. Their guilt makes you feel better about your own guilt.

Ignoring the less than subtle inclusion of ad hominem in your argument (I do have young cousins I could talk to in order to get this if I wanted), your point is still based on figures from 2001. I would also suggest that a large proportion of any cost incurred due to any kind of infiltration is likely down to bad system administration. In the past four years, I have been largely involved in the running of three completely separate corporate networks. On these networks, around 98% of clients are running windows. Some of the clients run mac OSX. Most of the servers are windows, though a few are either linux or OSX. So we do run multi-platform networks. While I have been helping run these networks, there has never been a virus outbreak on any of them. Occasionally a PC somewhere gets infected, but it's far from a common occurance and most of the time it takes 10 minutes to fix it. Security we implemented has prevented any virus so far from spreading.

At home, I run my own network of 12 computers in three different locations. Each location has a very old PC (between 8 and 10 years old) running a free copy of smoothwall linux. These smoothwall boxes have two purposes 1. a corporate network firewall, protecting everything behind it and 2. Linking the three networks to each other via virtual private network over the internet. I had to modify the hardware inside each box so it had two network cards (it basically acts as a very powerful router).

The remaining nine computers behind each respective smoothwall box, are a mixture of laptops and PCs. The newest laptop is two years old. The oldest is 8 years old. I have never had to replace any hardware in any of these laptops. The operating system (windows XP OEM) came with each of them. Some of the tower computers were custom built, others came pre-built. The components inside range from 10 years old to 2 years old. Every one of them has had comonents swapped between them in order for me to increase and decrease the spec of each one how I want, according to what each one is to be used for. The only bad components I had to replace was a faulty power supply unit and a dodgy monitor. A couple are used are servers, these run linux. Some of them still have the OS they were shipped with (XP). None of these computers (lapops or towers) have had any software purchased for them at any point in order to keep them running properly and securely. Everything we have wanted to do, the software was available free of charge. I've only ever had two infections of any of these computers, both of which were removed by software that is available free of charge online.

There is no way I could have had anywhere near this much freedom on macs. The freedom to do this, has saved me a small fortune on buying extra equipment.

That sounds about right. If you had set up a Mac network, you would have just had to plug em in and turn em on.

Hey it was your point. You gave evidence that an organisation believed mac users were better educated eight years ago. It's up to you to give evidence this still applies today.

We both knew you just made it up. Thank you for demonstrating it. I provided evidence for my claim and you balked.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Snow

[marts1]

It's not going anywhere other than attempting to enhance your ability to debate.

Or sell! Got me sold, I want a mac, set me up.:) j/k

[Mahone]

It doesn't matter whether not you disagree; agreeing to terms and conditions and then unilaterally violating the agreed upon terms is immoral. Your point of view is Microsoftian - hey, we did it, therefor it has to be okay.

Wrong. That can potentially make it illegal. Not immoral. Not all rules and regulations are moral. Does that mean disobeying them is still immoral?

Dude - YOU, not me brought it up. YOU should chastise yourself for diverting attention.

How so? I was trying to explain how I (and I'm pretty sure most people) don't like the idea of apple making these decisions for them, and telling them what they want, as opposed to letting them choose for themselves. You then say that what I did is immoral (and a possibility of it being illegal, but the jury is still out on that), but not actually trying to counter my original point in any way, just diverting attention from it.

Read the ruling. Being a monopoly is not illegal. Selling bundled software is not illegal, even for monopolies. The issues it that Microsoft illegally abused it's market power and that resulted in the legal restrictions - which it continued to violate. Perhaps that is why you prefer Microsoft. Their guilt makes you feel better about your own guilt.

No it's not. I didn't say it was. What I did say was that the rules are different for those in a monopoly position.

That sounds about right. If you had set up a Mac network, you would have just had to plug em in and turn em on.

Explain? By all means I could have bought a mass of expensive equipment (including expensive networking equipment, such as a router to replace one that I made using an old pc and linux), and buying new macs each time I wanted to change something, but I'd rather not sacrifice a small fortune for a bit of convenience.

We both knew you just made it up. Thank you for demonstrating it. I provided evidence for my claim and you balked.

No you didn't. You provided evidence that an organisation thought this is 2002. Where is the evidence that they still think this in the last year or two?

Edited March 20, 2010 by Mahone

[Snow]

Wrong. That can potentially make it illegal. Not immoral. Not all rules and regulations are moral. Does that mean disobeying them is still immoral?

Morality refers to right and wrong

You agreed to terms and conditions and then dishonestly violated what you agreed to.

Justify it all you like. You aren't LDS are you.

How so?

How so indeed. You brought up that you were willfully reneging on your agreement. That how.

No it's not. I didn't say it was. What I did say was that the rules are different for those in a monopoly position.

We both know that you are wrong or else you would have posted the different rules that you claim exist, but don't.

No you didn't. You provided evidence that an organisation thought this is 2002. Where is the evidence that they still think this in the last year or two?

We both know that you are never going to provide evidence to support you assertion so why are you bringing it up again.

Here's a hint - if you can't provide any evidence for what you make up, you shouldn't do it. You'll get called out on it.

[bytebear]

I just want to point out that "We both know you are wrong" is not a valid argument in any debate.

[Snow]

I just want to point out that "We both know you are wrong" is not a valid argument in any debate.

Geeze - it's not an argument. I pointing out that it is so glaring obvious that you wrong that even you must surely know it.

Since it is untrue and you must know it, I have to ask why you said it. Why?

[Mahone]

Morality refers to right and wrong

You agreed to terms and conditions and then dishonestly violated what you agreed to.

Justify it all you like. You aren't LDS are you.

Guilt trip attempt aside (I am LDS but inactive due to issues I have with church policies), it is your opinion that it is wrong. Did you know that in the UK, it is still illegal to rip tracks from a CD to put onto your MP3 player? Though no court is ever actually going to take that law seriously anymore. It's only if you rip the CD, and then sell the tracks you ripped, or share them online that they will have an issue with it.

Apple does not want people to jailbreak their iPhone. Why? Two reasons. 1. Their support requests will go through the roof, because there are a lot of people who will try and do it when they don't really know what they are doing. This is why they made doing it against their T&C of their warranty. 2. People can download applications for their phone from outside of the apple store including applications that apple may have otherwise rejected. But apple don't like this, because they are no longer in the equation and no longer in control. It also allows people to use their phones for illegal activity, but this isn't what we are discussing here. That's the equivalent of saying file sharing software is illegal because you can use it do to illegal things, or that knifes are illegal because you can kill people with them.

To my knowledge, no-one has ever been prosecuted over a jailbroken iphone, even though people don't tend to exactly keep quiet about it.

And I hate the "justify it all you like" argument. Well, it's not really an argument. It's a cop out. The activity of jailbreaking an iphone is not currently known to be illegal. It just means you can't get support on warranty.

How so indeed. You brought up that you were willfully reneging on your agreement. That how.

Okay. But how does that give evidence against apple telling us what we want, as opposed to giving their customers the ability to choose? You used the word control several times.

We both know that you are wrong or else you would have posted the different rules that you claim exist, but don't.

From wikipedia:

Under EU law, very large market shares raises a presumption that a firm is dominant,[32] which may be rebuttable.[33] If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market".[34] The lowest yet market share of a firm considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%.[35]

Therefore, that means both microsoft and apple can do exactly the same thing, yet only one gets taken to court over it. This is simply because the dominant one has the ability to impair competition, the other does not.

We both know that you are never going to provide evidence to support you assertion so why are you bringing it up again.

Here's a hint - if you can't provide any evidence for what you make up, you shouldn't do it. You'll get called out on it.

I have not disagreed that an organisation claimed to have evidence that mac users were better educated in 2002. I disagree with their conclusion, but still accept that they came to that conclusion. I'm still waiting for proof that an organisation claims to have evidence of this in 2009/2010.

Also, your source at cio.com that claims macs are cheaper to operate is known to have a vested interest in macs. They also missed out some vital parts, such as the actual cost of the computers themselves. That wasn't taken into account. Neither was what they were actually used for. Most PCs have far more applications installed (due to better compatibility), and are used for many more tasks than the average mac. When you have an application that won't install on a mac, where do you install it instead? On the PCs. It's no wonder they might cost more to support.

[Snow]

Guilt trip attempt aside (I am LDS but inactive due to issues I have with church policies), it is your opinion that it is wrong. Did you know that in the UK, it is still illegal to rip tracks from a CD to put onto your MP3 player? Though no court is ever actually going to take that law seriously anymore. It's only if you rip the CD, and then sell the tracks you ripped, or share them online that they will have an issue with it.

Apple does not want people to jailbreak their iPhone. Why? Two reasons. 1. Their support requests will go through the roof, because there are a lot of people who will try and do it when they don't really know what they are doing. This is why they made doing it against their T&C of their warranty. 2. People can download applications for their phone from outside of the apple store including applications that apple may have otherwise rejected. But apple don't like this, because they are no longer in the equation and no longer in control. It also allows people to use their phones for illegal activity, but this isn't what we are discussing here. That's the equivalent of saying file sharing software is illegal because you can use it do to illegal things, or that knifes are illegal because you can kill people with them.

To my knowledge, no-one has ever been prosecuted over a jailbroken iphone, even though people don't tend to exactly keep quiet about it.

And I hate the "justify it all you like" argument. Well, it's not really an argument. It's a cop out. The activity of jailbreaking an iphone is not currently known to be illegal. It just means you can't get support on warranty.[/quote[

Illegality is not the main issue. You are dishonest and a cheat. You violated the agreed upon terms of your license. You should have kept it to yourself.

Okay. But how does that give evidence against apple telling us what we want, as opposed to giving their customers the ability to choose? You used the word control several times.

From wikipedia:

Under EU law, very large market shares raises a presumption that a firm is dominant,[32] which may be rebuttable.[33] If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market".[34] The lowest yet market share of a firm considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%.[35]

Therefore, that means both microsoft and apple can do exactly the same thing, yet only one gets taken to court over it. This is simply because the dominant one has the ability to impair competition, the other does not.

It's like talking to cement. They got taken to court because they illegally abused their power.... but that's a good reference so thanks.

I have not disagreed that an organisation claimed to have evidence that mac users were better educated in 2002. I disagree with their conclusion, but still accept that they came to that conclusion. I'm still waiting for proof that an organisation claims to have evidence of this in 2009/2010.

You may not think that the evidence I provided is sufficient to demonstrate the claim but I did provide evidence - and you, for the 4th time have utterly failed to provide any evidence at all for your claim.

You ought to stop carping until you meet your obligation, but for what it is worth:

A NPD study recently found:

Hot off the press from consumer-research firm NPD is just a little bit more good news for Apple: not only are Mac users richer than the average computer user and buy more tech goods, but they're 'hipper,' too.

The study concludes, "Apple household owners' actions and purchases can be used by the industry as leading indicators for hot new products and adoption." Zing.

Mac market share is also going up.

The NPD study found that approximately 12 percent of all computer-owning households in the US have an Apple computer, up 4 percent from 2008. Interestingly, although Apple ownership is growing, the vast majority of those Apple-buying households (85 percent) also own a Windows-based PC.

More stats from the study:

Thirty-six percent of Apple computer owners reported household incomes greater than $100,000, compared to 21 percent of all consumers.

The average Apple household owns 48 CE [consumer electronic] devices whereas the average computer household owns about 24.

66 percent of households owning three or more computers, compared to just 29 percent of Windows PC households.

Apple owning households are decidedly more mobile as well, with 72 percent of them owning a notebook, whereas only 50 percent of households that have a Windows PC own a notebook.

Not only do Apple computer owners own more computers (and more mobile computers) than the norm they also tend to own more types of electronics, and more of them, than typical computer owning households. For example, while 36 percent of total computer owning households have an iPod, 63 percent of Apple households have one. And while almost 50 percent of Apple owners own some type of navigation system, only about 30 percent of all computer households own one.

Apple Smackdown: Mac Users Are Richer, 'Cooler', Study Finds

You could claim that the more affluent you are the less educated you are - are you going to claim that?

Also, your source at cio.com that claims macs are cheaper to operate is known to have a vested interest in macs.

That's why I referenced a number of studies in this thread.

They also missed out some vital parts, such as the actual cost of the computers themselves. That wasn't taken into account. Neither was what they were actually used for.

It's not like you can't find tons of examples:

A Mac Pro with dual 2.6GHz Xeons, 1GB of 667MHz RAM, a 250GB hard drive spinning at 7,200rpm, and an Nvidia GeForce 7300GT video card with 256MB of dedicated video memory is $2,499 on Apple's site, as promised. A Dell Precision 690 workstation with the same specs except for an Nvidia Quadro NVS 285 video card will run you $3,709. An HP Workstation xw8400 with that same Quadro NVS 285 hits $3,791. So if our elementary-school arithmetic is correct, the Mac Pro is $1,210 less than the Dell and $1,292 less than the HP.

Macs are cheaper than PCs? Yes - Alpha Blog - alpha.cnet.com

Most PCs have far more applications installed (due to better compatibility), and are used for many more tasks than the average mac. When you have an application that won't install on a mac, where do you install it instead? On the PCs. It's no wonder they might cost more to support.

I'd love to see some evidence of that claims - please post it 1. that PCs average more installed software, 2. the reason is compatibility.

I'll wait right here.

[Moksha]

2. Regardless of the reasons, PCs are prone to viruses and the annual cost is in the billions.

These hardy PCs have to go out in the cold and damp to face the business world everyday. They can't stay home and consume vitamin C, listen to Earth sounds and eat alfalfa sprouts. Of course they will run into more viruses.

Dell EBITDA = 3.26 Billion

Dell Operating Margin = 4.55%

Dell Mkt Cap = 20.20 Billion

Apple EBITDA = 14.11 Billion

Apple Operating Margin = 28.61%

Mkt Cap = 201.53 Billion

Who has the superior strategy?

Sounds like there is good reason to get out of the computer biz and make money with overpriced iPhones, iPods, and music stores. Probably more dates and hot tubbing too when you mention music stores.

[Mahone]

Illegality is not the main issue. You are dishonest and a cheat. You violated the agreed upon terms of your license. You should have kept it to yourself.

Why thank you. However this is your opinion, and I disagree. Currently so would the law. No apples were harmed by my actions. I have no reason to keep it to myself. Everyone who knows me is aware I have a jailbroken iPhone. Quite frankly, so do most other people that I know who have one. This however is still deviating from the supposed topic of this thread.

It's like talking to cement. They got taken to court because they illegally abused their power.... but that's a good reference so thanks.

What I said originally is that the rules are different for microsoft because they have a monopoly. This is proven by the fact that microsoft and apple both did the same thing, but microsoft got taken up on it, apple did not. The quote I gave was the one you asked for to back that up. My statement was not incorrect. Neither was yours actually, but you just took issue with mine for some reason.

You may not think that the evidence I provided is sufficient to demonstrate the claim but I did provide evidence - and you, for the 4th time have utterly failed to provide any evidence at all for your claim.

No I don't think the evidence you provided is sufficient. (This is where we get to that "opinion" stuff I was referring to earlier, where I said this thread could go on until the day you die, because there simply isn't enough evidence out there either way, otherwise this debate would have ended years ago). Basically, you are asking me to give evidence that something is wrong, when you have provided no evidence to the contrary. You want me to give evidence that mac users in 2009/2010 are not better educated, when you haven't given any evidence (until now) to say that they are. I'm sorry if a study from 2002 is worthless for 2010, but it is.

The studies mean nothing to me anyway. Most studies I read are either from organisations/companies that have a vested interest, or want to get into the press with some counterintuitive claims. I just thought it was amusing to continue.

You ought to stop carping until you meet your obligation, but for what it is worth:

A NPD study recently found:

Hot off the press from consumer-research firm NPD is just a little bit more good news for Apple: not only are Mac users richer than the average computer user and buy more tech goods, but they're 'hipper,' too.

The study concludes, "Apple household owners' actions and purchases can be used by the industry as leading indicators for hot new products and adoption." Zing.

Mac market share is also going up.

The NPD study found that approximately 12 percent of all computer-owning households in the US have an Apple computer, up 4 percent from 2008. Interestingly, although Apple ownership is growing, the vast majority of those Apple-buying households (85 percent) also own a Windows-based PC.

More stats from the study:

Thirty-six percent of Apple computer owners reported household incomes greater than $100,000, compared to 21 percent of all consumers.

The average Apple household owns 48 CE [consumer electronic] devices whereas the average computer household owns about 24.

66 percent of households owning three or more computers, compared to just 29 percent of Windows PC households.

Apple owning households are decidedly more mobile as well, with 72 percent of them owning a notebook, whereas only 50 percent of households that have a Windows PC own a notebook.

Not only do Apple computer owners own more computers (and more mobile computers) than the norm they also tend to own more types of electronics, and more of them, than typical computer owning households. For example, while 36 percent of total computer owning households have an iPod, 63 percent of Apple households have one. And while almost 50 percent of Apple owners own some type of navigation system, only about 30 percent of all computer households own one.

Apple Smackdown: Mac Users Are Richer, 'Cooler', Study Finds

You could claim that the more affluent you are the less educated you are - are you going to claim that?

No, that's actually not bad. But it also suggests better educated people lack common sense (this is a joke).

That's why I referenced a number of studies in this thread.

It's not like you can't find tons of examples:

A Mac Pro with dual 2.6GHz Xeons, 1GB of 667MHz RAM, a 250GB hard drive spinning at 7,200rpm, and an Nvidia GeForce 7300GT video card with 256MB of dedicated video memory is $2,499 on Apple's site, as promised. A Dell Precision 690 workstation with the same specs except for an Nvidia Quadro NVS 285 video card will run you $3,709. An HP Workstation xw8400 with that same Quadro NVS 285 hits $3,791. So if our elementary-school arithmetic is correct, the Mac Pro is $1,210 less than the Dell and $1,292 less than the HP.

Macs are cheaper than PCs? Yes - Alpha Blog - alpha.cnet.com

Alright, to be fair I'll go to the same store for both products - it's unfair to go to two different places for different machine and then do a comparison. A popular computer reseller here is PCWorld.

The mac mini you mentioned earlier - supposedly cheap at £500:

APPLE Mac mini MC238B/A:

Spec:

Processor: Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor P7550 - 2.26 GHz - 1066 MHz FSB - 3 MB L2 cache

HDD: 160 GB SATA, 5400 rpm

RAM: 2 GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM

Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory

USB Ports: 5

Firewire: 1

Ethernet: Gigabit wired and Wireless N

Bluetooth: Yes

TV Output: Mini DVI

Memory Card Reader: No

Optical drive: Dual layer DVD writer

OS: Snow leopard

Then we have the closest priced PC I could find, at £30 less (£470):

PACKARD BELL iXtreme X5620

Spec:

Processor: Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q8300 - 2.5 GHz - 1333 MHz FSB - 4 MB L2 cache

HDD: 640GB

RAM: 4GB

Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7100 integrated graphics processor

USB Ports: 8

Firewire: 0

Ethernet: 100MB wired and Wireless G

Bluetooth: No

TV Output: HDMI

Memory Card Reader: Yes

Optical Drive: Dual layer DVD writer

OS: Windows 7 home premium

I'm sorry, I know which one I'd go for, especially as I have the ability to upgrade the one, but not the other. Also, these specs are way above what I would want for a low spec machine.

I'd love to see some evidence of that claims - please post it 1. that PCs average more installed software, 2. the reason is compatibility.

That's a fairly difficult thing you are asking for evidence of there. I can however give you evidence that windows has far more compatible software than OSX. From this, we can make the assumption that windows PCs average more installed software, simply because more software is compatible with them.

Category:Windows software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (798 total)

Category:Mac OS X software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (281 total)

[john doe]

I don't there's going to be a resolution for this question. Since Apple and PCs run different operating systems and utilize different standards to measure performance, you can't get a definitive answer as to which one is better. What it comes down to is personal preference for what you intend to use the computer for.

Personally, for me, I prefer PCs. I even built a couple from parts I bought at a distributor. My impression with Apple is that you get what you buy, and you really can't do much to personalize it to your needs or boost performance as a DIYer. You get what's in the box, and if the box doesn't do it, then you don't need it as far as Apple was concerned. That may not be true today, but that is my impression.

[Snow]

Why thank you. However this is your opinion, and I disagree. Currently so would the law. No apples were harmed by my actions. I have no reason to keep it to myself. Everyone who knows me is aware I have a jailbroken iPhone. Quite frankly, so do most other people that I know who have one. This however is still deviating from the supposed topic of this thread.

It's NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. Read you licensing agreement. You broke it. That's immoral and dishonest - as a factual matter.

No I don't think the evidence you provided is sufficient. (This is where we get to that "opinion" stuff I was referring to earlier, where I said this thread could go on until the day you die, because there simply isn't enough evidence out there either way, otherwise this debate would have ended years ago). Basically, you are asking me to give evidence that something is wrong, when you have provided no evidence to the contrary. You want me to give evidence that mac users in 2009/2010 are not better educated, when you haven't given any evidence (until now) to say that they are. I'm sorry if a study from 2002 is worthless for 2010, but it is.

That FIVE times you have failed to provide evidence for your claim. Will you make it six?

Alright, to be fair I'll go to the same store for both products - it's unfair to go to two different places for different machine and then do a comparison. A popular computer reseller here is PCWorld.

The mac mini you mentioned earlier - supposedly cheap at £500:

I don't think that the Mini offers the very best attractive price / performance point - except you get OS X, iLife, freedom from viruses, no yearly cost for security software, better customer service, a better industrial design, and a longer useful life. Reason enough to consider it over a PC - and it's less expensive in the long run.

That's a fairly difficult thing you are asking for evidence of there. I can however give you evidence that windows has far more compatible software than OSX. From this, we can make the assumption that windows PCs average more installed software, simply because more software is compatible with them.

Everyone knows there's more software - that's irrelevant. I asked you for evidence to support your claim.

[prisonchaplain]

PC vs MAC?

Well, I have to go with Prison Chaplain of course! Not really sure who MAC is...but PC always has some great posts!!

And while some Protestants have given y'all a bad time, you wouldn't have a Restoration to revel in, if it wasn't for our Reforms!

I did some investigation, and found that MAC is actually a flatterer. S/he appears as an investigator, and begins by saying things like, "Mormons Always Cool." Then, around post 7 (or new thread #3), along come, "a few questions I've been wondering about." Of course, these questions look vaguely to oh-so familiar, because they are cribbed from MAC Attack HQ.

MAC vs. PC? Yeah...no contest!

[Snow]

Apple is the World's Most Admired Company - Again.

So which company does business admire most? Even among this select group there is a clear leader: For the third straight year Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) takes the No. 1 spot -- this time by the highest margin ever, according to Hay Group, the management consulting firm that collaborates with Fortune on the list. Indeed, in 2009, 51% of corporate leaders surveyed said they admired Apple, an unprecedented majority.

What accounts for Apple's exalted status? One explanation is that it is the company that has single-handedly changed the way we do everything from consume music and access information to design products and engage with the world around us.

Because of its track record, consumers and businesses alike trust Apple's inventions and its ability not only to churn out products that connect with customers but also to introduce a new way of doing things -- to literally show us what's next.

World's Most Admired Companies: Who does business trust?

[Mahone]

It's NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. Read you licensing agreement. You broke it. That's immoral and dishonest - as a factual matter.

Lol. I do love the way you mix fact and opinion together. The only fact in there is that I broke my licensing agreement. Immoral certainly is your opinion, because there is no evidence to support your claim that breaking the licensing agreement is actually wrong or how anyone was hurt in any way by my actions. By your logic, everyone who has ever ripped tracks from a CD in the UK is immoral because they broke the laws they agreed to obey. What are you trying to achieve by this? A dig at me personally, so everything else I say looks less credible? This is not the subject of this post and is not at all related, though you do seem to love hanging on to this.

That FIVE times you have failed to provide evidence for your claim. Will you make it six?

Absolutely. I've already said studies mean nothing to me and given reasons why they are pretty much irrelevant. I just thought it was amusing to continue that part.

I don't think that the Mini offers the very best attractive price / performance point - except you get OS X, iLife, freedom from viruses, no yearly cost for security software, better customer service, a better industrial design, and a longer useful life. Reason enough to consider it over a PC - and it's less expensive in the long run.

You did however say that it was the best choice apple could provide for a low spec machine. So basically anyone who wants to only do non-intensive stuff on their computer is getting a very bad deal. I could get a low spec PC and put linux on it for a 1/10 of the cost, and they'd still to able to browse the web, watch movies, work in office apps and other basic stuff.

except you get OS X

I'm not sure that's a good thing

iLife

Okay, paying for software on top of the OS that you don't necessarily want.

freedom from viruses

I've not ever had a virus on most of my PCs. And this is a dodgy point, because this is something that applies today only. I had already given you proof that OSX and it's bundled software contains hidden flaws (and that's obvious anyway), it's just waiting for people to find them. Once they do, that no longer applies. You are also still missing the point that viruses are not that common anymore anyway. Your own source backed that up.

It's worth mentioning as well that this statement is potentially damaging. It gives mac users the impression that OSX is invincible (no software is 100% secure - hacking 101), so they become complacent with that. That's when they become vulnerable to social engineering and that is very dangerous. No security can stop the user doing stupid things - this is most of the problem in windows as well. Coupled with the fact that most people will makes viruses (and other types of infections) for windows due to a bigger user base, this is going to lead to more infections.

no yearly cost for security software

Me neither. It all comes free.

better customer service

Compared to who, exactly? Do you know how many thousands of companies there are out there who make PCs? Are you willing to compare to all of them, or even most of them? Of course some will have a lower standard than apple. You're trying to compare oranges and apples.

a better industrial design,

I'd rather have a useful design than a pretty design, so I completely disagree here. As I said, I prefer the useful factor over the cool factor.

and a longer useful life

I've got 10 years old PCs still happily running smoothwall linux - oh, and they are upgradable too, so I can extend that life if I wish.

Reason enough to consider it over a PC - and it's less expensive in the long run.

Disagree and disagree.

Everyone knows there's more software - that's irrelevant. I asked you for evidence to support your claim.

Why is it irrelevant? It's not proof, but it does imply that more software would be installed on the average windows PC. I've told you how it works - I work in IT, I've seen this countless times. Everything that we have installed on our macs is also compatible with our PCs (at least I can't think of anything that isn't). Much of it is actually installed on our PCs. And then we have countless other packages installed on the PCs, far more than we have on the macs. Generally in business, macs have a specific purpose - this is usually for design work. PCs do not have one specific purpose most of the time, they just do everything else.

I don't know which organisation would be sad enough to do a study on the amount of software installed on the average mac/pc or what the point of such a study would be. All I can tell you is what I've seen on corporate networks that I've worked on. I can also tell you that that factor has not been taken into account in any of your studies. This is a flaw.

Looking at all your posts here, the bottom line for me is this: if you don't really know what you are doing on a computer, or you are happy to spend quite a bit of money in order to save time, then go for a mac - pay for apple to do it all for you instead. But it would be wise to bear in mind that you're more likely to come across applications that won't work without emulation, at least that's what probability would suggest by the amount of apps that windows has compared to apple. If however you know what you are doing, you can save an absolutely fortune by being able to customise your computer/network until you have it exactly how you want it. There is no way I could have set up my home network using apple equipment as cheaply as I did with PCs, simply due to the freedom I had to modify.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Mahone

[bytebear]

Not only do Apple computer owners own more computers (and more mobile computers) than the norm they also tend to own more types of electronics, and more of them, than typical computer owning households. For example, while 36 percent of total computer owning households have an iPod, 63 percent of Apple households have one. And while almost 50 percent of Apple owners own some type of navigation system, only about 30 percent of all computer households own one.

I really don't get the point of this. More educated people have more money, and so can afford more stuff.

What I do find interesting is that Apple owners also own PCs. But PCs owners don't generally own Macs. What does that tell you? It tells me that PCs are a necessity, but Macs are a luxury item, even a toy rather than a tool.

Edited March 21, 2010 by john doe
fixed quote function

[Dravin]

I own a Sansa 1GB MP3 player, and a compass and map (aka Navigation System)... that means I'm golden right?

[marts1]

What I do find interesting is that Apple owners also own PCs. But PCs owners don't generally own Macs. What does that tell you? It tells me that PCs are a necessity, but Macs are a luxury item, even a toy rather than a tool.

Lights are coming on if that is true!

[bytebear]

One thing I think we should discuss is the personality of Steve Jobs, and compare it to Bill Gates. When Apple went public, Jobs and Wozniak became instant millionaire. But Jobs refused to share that wealth with his employees. Instead, Woz shared his half with them and Jobs was greedy. Bill Gates on the other hand, now that he is retired is essentially using his wealth to help the third world. It seems the "green"types are Apple fans, but really who is doing more to save the planet? Steve Jobs is a miser, and since he was ousted from Apple and then returned, has become so protective of his products as to border on paranoia. His business plan isn't to help the consumer. It is to protect his company and his own personal power. He lost it once, and is making decisions based on a fear of a repeat of history.

[Guest Nikki_Elaine]

I'm just going to shut up, I'm learning something here... NOOOO! too late

[Snow]

What I do find interesting is that Apple owners also own PCs. But PCs owners don't generally own Macs. What does that tell you? It tells me that PCs are a necessity, but Macs are a luxury item, even a toy rather than a tool.

That is undoubtedly one of the most inane things I've ever heard or seen in print.

1. You stated an assumption or observation and fabricated something up out of thin air irrelevant to that observation. It like saying that because Mac users have a greater command of the English language (arguably true), then it can be concluded that PCs are subject to virus infection (demonstrably true). The difference between your illogic and mine is that while both my points are so, one of your points may be so but the other is inane.

2. Saying "PC" is a misnomer. PC means personal computer. Macs not only are PCs, they invented personal computers (along with Commodore).

3. If Wintel boxes are a neccesity - how do I get along without one? (I have one but I don't use it). I don't expect you to have an answer. You are just making up flatulence.

4. If you Wintel box is a tool and my Mac is a toy, what do you do on yours that I cannot do on mine?