Meet Apple's version of Deadheads

TalkBack 20 of 53:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

So true.

I must admit that the amount of maintenance, waiting for Outlook synchronizations, the slowdowns of adware/spyware/ etc take productive time away from me.

Then you must also admit that you don't know how to properly configure a Windows-run PC how to maintain itself once. Just yesterday, I was wondering if I had any viruses on my Windows PC, so I did a full system scan with AVG AntiVirus Free Edition(my onboard virus scanner) and then an online scan via [url=http://www.pandasoftware.com/activescan]Panda Antivirus ActiveScan[/url]. It found maybe seven tracking cookies.

I have spent $0.00 for my security and maintenance software, and I've spent maybe an hour configuring it to automatically update and scan, and/or do whatever else. I don't get any viruses, and I don't get any other malware.

Billed at a little over $100, those delays that are entirely Windows-related are costly not just to me but to my client, because they have to pay for my time.

And Macintosh apps never crash, is that right?

Only once on 4 Macs with OSX have I ever had to reinstall the system. I haven't crashed OS X.4 on any machines, I probably had 2 or 3 with OS X.3 and a few more with previous versions.

I have only had to reinstall Windows XP on one machine (out of three) here, too. This excludes mine which I format often, because I'm a geek and I play around with stuff. Of course, I've had a format and reinstall last for well past a year on my machine, and it could last much, much longer.

http://en.uptime-project.net/

All I have to do is look at Windows XP and it crashes on me.

Windows XP doesn't crash on you. A poorly made piece of software in a sensitive area (like a hardware driver, maybe) caused Windows XP to crash. You see, Windows-run PC's, unlike Macs, aren't made to work on a total of eight different proprietary platforms where there is little chance of error within the system itself. Sure, a Creative webcam hooked to a Mac might crash, to little or no detriment to yourself. But the motherboards, the core logic, the I/O ports, etc. are all in the same spot, and use the exact, same hardware in order to function.

With Windows XP, that isn't the case. You can build your computer from the ground up and use Windows XP on a countless selection of motherboards, multiple different processor architectures stretched across four brands of processor makers (Via, Transmeta, Intel, AMD), an even greater amount of chipsets from the respective chipset makers (not to mention oddities where a ULi southbridge is compatible with an ATI northbridge) and finally, all of this working with four memory standards. Then there's the other stuff, like the countless graphics cards/chips out there working on PCI, AGP, or PCI-Express... the hundreds of different optical drives, hard drives, etc... do I really need to go on? Windows XP works with all of that, alright? You will get the occasional software crash caused by an inept driver software or inept hardware (Via).

I also don't believe that PC's are cheaper for equivalent usages.

I do.

All Macs are enterprise ready, all of them.

Not all PC's are. Not all PC's need to be. Hell, not all Macs need to be. So why not make them cheaper, by shaving off something that isn't needed?

Not all PC's are and Microsoft is going to create a 4th level of premium Vista

Yeah, well, frankly I'm less than enthusiastic with all the new selections of Vista.

OSX is $129. XP Pro (equivalent) i show much?

$199 at most. You can often find it for [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102062]less[/url].

Finally, very few of you will be able to put Vista on your existing machines. I was able to use OS 2, 3 and 4, all very different OS's on the same machines.

Have you even ever used Vista? Did you even bother to look at the recommended system specifications? Because a LOT of people will be able to use it. I've gotten it running on a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4, 512 MB (2 x 256 MB) DDR-400 RAM, and an ATI Radeon 9600 XT 128 MB. I've even got Mac OS X running on it.

I have a TiBook from Aug 2001 still in daily use. Very few PC owners can make that claim.

The "Macs last longer" claim is perhaps the most untrue argument ever put forth. My current laptop is an 850 MHz Pentium III-powered Compaq Presario 1700US running Windows XP Professional. My grandfather does his computing on an eight-year old Dell Dimension XPS D300. It runs Windows XP Professional on a 300 MHz Pentium II and 384 MB RAM.

So, I 'm not sure "price" is the only way to measure "cost". Measure your maintenance time, as well, and put a value to it.You will see very quickly that your time adds up.

So figuring I lose $100 for the hour I lost configuring maintenance. We could even make it $200 I lost there. I save about $500 by going with a Dell Inspiron E1705 over a 17" MacBook Pro, and I get faster graphics. What's your point?

Posted by: A_Pickle   Posted on: 05/20/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• Open Standards Technologies Provide the Ingredients for Delivering Security Across the Papa Gino's Enterprise Dell Papa Gino's Holdings Corporation founded by the entrepreneur operates one ... Download Now