Study Finds Macs Cost 2X Windows PCs

[Steveorevo]

It runs just fine on the new igps anyhow.

Thats Microsoft for you. It 'just runs fine'. Its 'just good enough'. Its not great, its 'just enough' to get the most people to buy it. OSX isn't designed for the most people... Windows is. 32 bits was fine 5 years ago for the masses. You can buy 8 gigs of RAM for that PC but you'll have to make sure you've got a 34 or 64 bit bus AND you're running something other then Windows XP to address it. You could use Linux 64 bit... but good luck on reliable and stable drivers.

Now there's Vista 64bit but no apps. Unless Office is now 64 bit, I'm sure that spell checker is much better because of it! ;-)

If you can afford a Mac then you can run Windows or use VMWare fusion to satisfy and feel what most people experience, a very overrated operating system.

 

[MrPeeCeeParts]

[citation][nom]Steveorevo[/nom]Thats Microsoft for you. It 'just runs fine'. Its 'just good enough'. Its not great, its 'just enough' to get the most people to buy it. OSX isn't designed for the most people... Windows is. 32 bits was fine 5 years ago for the masses. You can buy 8 gigs of RAM for that PC but you'll have to make sure you've got a 34 or 64 bit bus AND you're running something other then Windows XP to address it. You could use Linux 64 bit... but good luck on reliable and stable drivers.Now there's Vista 64bit but no apps. Unless Office is now 64 bit, I'm sure that spell checker is much better because of it! ;-)If you can afford a Mac then you can run Windows or use VMWare fusion to satisfy and feel what most people experience, a very overrated operating system. [/citation]
Please get informed before you post such things. The AMD64 architecture (or Intel's version of it) is an EXTENSION of the x86-32bit, which was an extension of the original x86 (16bit) architecture. x86-64 is DESIGNED to run 64bit, 32bit and 16bit modes, and because of that you can run any application that would originally run on a 086 machine. The only thing you need for a 64bit machine is 64bit drivers.

You don't need Office-64bit to run Office in a 64bit OS. You would need Office-64bit if you wanted to take full benefit of a 64bit microprocessor. You can, however, run any Office version in any 64bit Windows OS.

[citation]you have to make sure you've got a 34 or 64 bit bus[/citation]
With a 32bit-long Address BUS you can access 4GB's of memory. That's its physical limit, but it can be overcome just the same way the original 16bit x86 did it with 12bit Address BUS: using shifts to access larger memory spaces. By default you can have up to 2Gbs of RAM in Windows 32bit (of the max. 4 you can install) since the OS will use 2Gbs. That being said, 2Gbs was, and is, more than enough for running Office.

In any case... the very same day 64bit desktop PCs became available, 32bit PCs became obsolete, so there is no reason not to install a Windows 64bit OS NOW, since pretty much any manufacturer has written drivers for it.

 

[Steveorevo]

[citation][nom]MrPeeCeeParts[/nom]Please get informed before you post such things. The AMD64 architecture (or Intel's version of it) is an EXTENSION of the x86-32bit,...citation]

Yes I am informed about it. Perhaps you need to read more carefully. Just because you run Windows 64bit doesn’t give you or make your 32bit applications suddenly run faster, in fact, on average, they run slower.

I’m aware there are a lot of 64bit drivers out for Windows 64bit but the applications themselves need to be updated as well. Intense and demanding applications that do video editing on the Windows platform like Adobe Premier, or even (now Microsoft’s) trueSpace for 3D editing still run under the 32bit ‘compatibility’ layer. They cannot leverage more then the 4 gigabyte memory barriers they were designed for.

Worse, they run even slower then the original 32bit XP they were designed for.

Want to edit a 8 gigabyte full length DVD or even half that a single layer 4.7 DVD? (4.7 is larger then 4). Just not as smooth as it is on a true 64bit operating system.

Windows XP 64 bit has been in beta since 2003, Mac has been 64bit on the G5 (PowerPC 970) since 2002 and on capable Intel processors today. Its not about the hardware... its about the software. And again, as I said before "32 bits was fine 5 years ago for the masses". I'll go as far to say that it probably still is. But Microsoft has never been known for making great software, just 'somewhat, sorta ok, wanna be software'.

Sorry. You need to get informed.

 

[anonymous too]

A couple of points - if you're a hard-core Windows user that wants to micro-spec your box, have a slew of component parts to name-drop to big-dog your buddies, there's no contest here. That game is all-Windows, all the time. If you're a computer user that is focused on a range of tasks, and wish to focus on outcomes, rather than the equipment and the processes to those outcomes, then you're not limited to the Windows OS. And if you fall into that second group, it's important to figure on another expense - tech support for your machine. I work in an office equipped with mid-level (I'll call them business-grade) Dells and we spend just over $2,000 per year to support seven workstations. I also have a home office, a wireless network including five computers, a printer, graphics workstation. Anecdotally - the home office outperforms the office significantly - based on downtime, the amount of wait-time for pages to load, the printer to respond, etc. Outside tech support costs? $0. Internal (i.e. my time) negligible.
When you discuss performance, the user-experience is a critical criteria. At work, people bitch continually about the %$&^%$ computers - they really aren't that much fun to work with. At home (and where the work, computer-wise, is much heavier lifting - professional pre-press on the print side, dynamic web sites, email newsletters), everyone's happy.
That's a huge consideration when price is considered.It's also worth noting that 'hard-core gamers' are a specialist group of users. Can you imagine if your home stereo system was built based on the needs of your local ham radio group?
And secondly - the writer continually refers to being 'stuck' with the iMac display. I have a 24" iMac on my desk and my Windows friends drool and use words like "gorgeous" and 'Wow!', when they work on my machine. When I look at what I do, how I do it, the satisfaction I get out of working in this environment, I find the equipment I have delivers good value. That's an important criteria that I find missing form this piece - and the NPD study, with no attribution or reference, isn't a study. It's just a person spouting. Different thing entirely.

 

[Guest]

I use linux, and I am more than satisfied by the performance of my custom built linux desktop which blows away competition from any windows PC or apple mac. I get better performance, better ease of use as well as better looks. I only wish game developers released more games to linux. There is a lot of under-utilised potential here.

 

[Guest]

Lets not drive the jumbo jet to work. The T7400 definitely does not compare to a mac pro. The dell workstations can be spec'd out WAY higher than the website allows. I know, because I sell them. The T7400 can come with up to 128GB of memory, SLI, faster processors, much better SAS storage options... that is compareable to a mac pro how? You're dumbing down the T7400 and paying for options that are not being used.

 

[tanderskey]

six pages of comments. wow. and theyre all the same. mine tastes great! mine is less filling! no, youre not getting me, i said mine tastes great!

i defer to the genius of George Carlin (although i have no idea his IQ score) when he said "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"

yeah.

tastes great.