Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
My understanding was that Apple did a great job of getting their computers into classrooms, and they've always offered great deals to college students.
My first book, published in '94, HAD to be sent to the publisher using Word Star. My second, published in '97, HAD to be sent to the exact same publisher in Word Perfect. The one that came out last year HAD to be sent to a different publisher in Word, and the writing job I'm looking at requires using Office. I know there is a Mac version. But they said I'd be working on a PC. Period. Not to say it's a good choice or a bad choice. It's a choice I personally like because I like PCs. But it's definitely a reality for a writer.
Your idea is right on the mark but for different reasons than you think--and I can't understand why nobody sees this. If you compare the same hardware, say Apples to Dells, the costs are nearly the same for a comparable machine. Don't take my word for it, you can check it out on their respective websites or see this article: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?articleId=9023959&command=viewArticleBasic
"The second big reason Macs cost less is that you don't have to buy anti-virus software (much less waste hours running them)."
How many times have people pointed out that you can get plenty of anti-malware, spyware and other anti-virus stuff for FREE and that even if you buy it, it's not expensive, it's easy to use, it doesn't waste hours of your time running stuff and the cost certainly doesn't even make a dent in the sizable difference between similarly equipped MACs and PCs. But, I guess the strategy is that if you repeat it enough it becomes true.
I only read a few pages of posts, and with in that nobody really mentioned the most compelling reason to stick with Windows XP... the 3rd party software.
I have literally 1000's of freeware, shareware, emulated, etc. games and programs written to work with my Windows XP machine. This sentence of the article gives away the fallacy pretty early on:
"There is probably a single overwhelming reason you're clinging to Windows. Macs are expensive."
No, it's because I've invested much of my time and energy to playing games and using software that runs on my WinXP machine. And, soon I'm going to rip out much of it's guts and replace it with a faster running WinXP machine. (I'm currently avoiding Vista like the plague!)
I'll turn the old guts into a Linux box, not resell them. :)
jason.
I work in a computer lab so I am finding these replies amusing. Everyone who uses a
Mac is capable of using a PC. Not everyone who is uses a PC is capable of using a Mac.
"Oh no! I can't use a Mac!"
I think that says a lot.
Dirty little secret - people who service and maintain computer systems are naturally prejudiced towards a computer systems that will give them job security, increased budgets and mystify their users with problems best solved by a Microsoft Certified Technician or a fully equipped Help Desk Team.
Look what happened to the Maytag repairman.
IT professional - "You have to get rid of yourMacs, Apple is going out of business within two years" - 1997 - wishful thinking.
Instead of comparing the quality of Apple computers to an elitist BMW, maybe we should use Harley Davidson instead. Imagine a class of people who dare to be different, and stand apart from the crowd, but still are part of a deep-rooted culture of like-minded people and American values. Okay, not so much anymore since Apple has become the new in-thing and a little too popular for my liking, but you catch my drift.
Your basic premise is value over the long term. I think it's little different from the value you seek in any large cash investment purchase, whether it's a car, motorcycle, or computer system. I agree. The Mac is a better value, especially if you intend to sell your machine to upgrade to a faster one in the future. You can also argue with the right mix of software and peripherals, you can be more productive with your work flow, and commit less time to routine maintenance (security updates, virus definitions, spyware detection updates, etc.) than a PC running Windows. More time to work and play, less time to worry about crapware infecting your computer and corrupting your data. Bar none, if you like browsing the Internet, the Mac is the perfect machine to do it with.
Some people just want cheap, and don't worry about selling prices or quality and craftsmanship. Perhaps the Mac isn't for them, and that's fine with the world. To each his own devices. Their loss.
A couple of caveats I'll point out. Certain Macs aren't known for their expandability. Don't buy an iMac if tinkering with your computer is important to you. Look at the Mac Pro if you keep the side covers off of your tower case. A Mac may take more time and effort to find the match of software you'll need, compared to the bounty of Windows software available for PCs. I've always believed you should buy a computer based on the software you need to run. But with a little extra effort and moderate degree of will to adapt, it's not a big deal for most Windows converts to use a Mac as their main computer.
Since Windows can now run on Intel based Macs with OS X, you can always dual-boot either OS, or simply run a Windows virtual machine on your Mac. Sort of the best of both worlds on one machine. Pretty sweet and one less reason to bypass the Mac.
I've always regretted selling my Apple IIGS. Ah, the memories come flooding back. I'm not so sure I'll part with my iMac or PowerBook anytime soon. But the itch to upgrade is gnawing at me something fierce.
I don't know where Farhad Manjoo is getting his numbers from when he talks about a $100 dollar price premium for Apple hardware versus PC hardware. I am in the market for a new notebook, my first notebook in fact, and having purchased an Apple computer back in my Stanford days (an LC II aka “The Pizza Box”) I was leaning hard in Apple's direction. However, what I discovered was not a relatively paltry $100 dollar price difference but a supreme $600 dollar price difference. Moreover, Apple notebooks have some glaring hardware deficiencies. For example, I can purchase an ASUS F3 series notebook with the exact or better hardware specs for $1400 dollars at Newegg while a comparable Apple MacBook Pro costs me $2000 dollars. And the Mac lacks the following:
1)Extended battery option
2)VGA port (don't lose/forget that DVI-to-VGA adapter on presentation day)
3)Card reader (can I at least get a basic 3-in-1?)
4)V.92 modem (wireless isn't everywhere you know)
5)S-Video
The ASUS notebook as well as almost any Dell, HP, Gateway etc... have these basic, sometimes essential hardware I/O ports. Apple forces you to buy and/or carry around adapters from them for items 2-5. This is called vendor lock-in. And anyway you slice it, there is no way that resale value is going to recoup a 43% price premium for Apple hardware at the time of purchase. And thats without adding the cost of the USB adapters for items 2-5. Look, I know that the computers are more aesthetically pleasing than most and have better hardware/software integration but that isn't worth a 43% price differential. If Apple wants my hard-earned money, they need to fix the above mentioned items AND lower their prices significantly. And don't tell me it can't be done, we all saw what happened with the iPhone.
Personally, I believe Apple is being greedy about its hardware profit margins and snobbish about its products although they lack basic features. They make up for it with eye catching design and marketing a culture instead of a product. This new revived Apple reminds me of the old Apple and why I left the platform a long time ago.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
