On 10/7/2011 5:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

One of my bad jokes is that I would be out of business if Microsoft
had done a better job. There's quite a bit of truth to that.

It's 100 percent true. An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account, because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines. But I digress. The people who own Windows computers that I
work on manage to feel that they have gotten a better and cheaper deal,
when in fact, by the time they have paid me for a few fixes, they have
surpassed the cost of "That pricey Apple computer". They also tend to
quote the price of some half a$$ed cheap PC and something like the 27
inch i7 iMac when comparing prices. Check ot the high end Sony all in
one, then we can talk about prices in more of an apple to apple fashion
8^) (not that you've complained about Apple prices AFAIK.

In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:00:38 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account,

I beg to differ. In 2009, I went through some effort to compare Dell
and Apple computahs selling just before Christmas time:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mac-vs-PC.xls
Only the 13" MacBook was fairly competative with the equivalent Dell.
In all other cases, Apple was twice as expensive as Dell. I went
through considerable effort to get all the hardware as identical as
possible, but there are some discrepancies. The big one is that the
cost of the firewire port is not included in the PC pricing, because
few PC's actually use firewire. I plan to bring the spreadsheet up to
date sometime in November, when Christmas prices and goodies appear.

because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

Interesting. My customers problems seem to revolve around hardware
and software that was insufficiently tested and is therefore infested
with bugs. The problem is not that either was obsolete. It was that
they were permaturely released. Since whomever makes it to market
first usually wins, it's understandable.

But I digress. The people who own Windows computers that I
work on manage to feel that they have gotten a better and cheaper deal,
when in fact, by the time they have paid me for a few fixes, they have
surpassed the cost of "That pricey Apple computer". They also tend to
quote the price of some half a$$ed cheap PC and something like the 27
inch i7 iMac when comparing prices. Check ot the high end Sony all in
one, then we can talk about prices in more of an apple to apple fashion
8^) (not that you've complained about Apple prices AFAIK.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't consider paying for
repairs in advance in the form of AppleCare as a great improvement.
I'll be sure to include the 27" iMac in my comparison, but it might
not be against an overpriced Sony. Nobody else has a 27" so I'll
compare the smaller screens. Very roughly, the Apple 21.5" iMac
starts at $1200. The Dell Inspiron 2320 all-in-one with a 23" screen
starts at $950.

In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

I don't have much contact with IT except when they get into trouble.
As far as I can determine, most of IT consists of supporting users,
not machines. As near as I can determine, the level of user support
is about equal, whether Windoze, Mac, or Linux.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 10/9/2011 10:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:00:38 -0400, Michael
wrote:

An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account,

I beg to differ. In 2009, I went through some effort to compare Dell
and Apple computahs selling just before Christmas time:


I looked at the all in one's. Dell doesn't even sell an i7, or even an
i5 Biggest they have is an i3, Don't have a 27 inch monnitor, don't have
a 1 TB hard drive. In addition the all in one Mac's have non-laptop
components.

That's the issue I was referring to, Jeff. the Mac is called "too
expensive", and it is compared to a machine that doesn't exist, so a
cheaper machine is trotted out as a comparison.

So yes, the Mac is a whole lot more expensive than a machine that is a
whole lot less capable. And infinitely more expensive than a machine
that doesn't exist.

As I said, the closest thing I found is a Sony, and it's over 2K for a
much smaller screen. Do not want.

The big one is that the
cost of the firewire port is not included in the PC pricing, because
few PC's actually use firewire. I plan to bring the spreadsheet up to
date sometime in November, when Christmas prices and goodies appear.

I do use firewire. And will use Thunderbolt. Check out the specs vs USB3.


because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

Interesting. My customers problems seem to revolve around hardware
and software that was insufficiently tested and is therefore infested
with bugs. The problem is not that either was obsolete. It was that
they were permaturely released. Since whomever makes it to market
first usually wins, it's understandable.

Mine tend to revolve around security issues, and updates that turn off
needed functions to "enhance" security. As I joke with them, I note that
the most secure computer is one that doesn't work any more.


But I digress. The people who own Windows computers that I
work on manage to feel that they have gotten a better and cheaper deal,
when in fact, by the time they have paid me for a few fixes, they have
surpassed the cost of "That pricey Apple computer". They also tend to
quote the price of some half a$$ed cheap PC and something like the 27
inch i7 iMac when comparing prices. Check ot the high end Sony all in
one, then we can talk about prices in more of an apple to apple fashion
8^) (not that you've complained about Apple prices AFAIK.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't consider paying for
repairs in advance in the form of AppleCare as a great improvement.

Don't use Applecare, and don't need it. The one issue with the bad
Rubycon caps a few years back was taken care of via recall. And that hit
many manufacturers, Dell included. I did have a server power supply go
bad once. Haven't counted the PC machines.



I'll be sure to include the 27" iMac in my comparison, but it might
not be against an overpriced Sony. Nobody else has a 27" so I'll
compare the smaller screens. Very roughly, the Apple 21.5" iMac
starts at $1200. The Dell Inspiron 2320 all-in-one with a 23" screen
starts at $950.

And there we go. I use a 27 inch Imac at work, and I don't want
another dinky screen.

As far as my outside computer support goes, I can make up that
difference in a short time. A couple service calls, and they might as
well spent the extra money on the Mac.

Or they can try the Geek Squad.


In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

I don't have much contact with IT except when they get into trouble.
As far as I can determine, most of IT consists of supporting users,
not machines. As near as I can determine, the level of user support
is about equal, whether Windoze, Mac, or Linux.

Windows and Mac. Windows is around 95 percent of the work. The biggest
problem on the Mac side is the permissions, a side effect of switching
to a Unix based system. If not for the Windows support, I wouldn't do
support at all (permission fixes take mere seconds. Weird situation,
since I'm actually a videographer.

but yeah, I'm entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. If
you want to compare lesser Windows machines to Mac's have at it.

I do have the experience of working a lot with both types - actually
Linux too, but only at home. A lot. 8 hours a day with the Mac, maybe 6
a day with Windows. I don't dislike one or another, but I do put a
premium on the thing working. My Mac's work a whole lot more, and allow
me to meet my deadlines much better than the Windows machines. And that
part is fact, not opinion.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On 10/9/2011 9:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:00:38 -0400, Michael
wrote:
In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

I don't have much contact with IT except when they get into trouble.
As far as I can determine, most of IT consists of supporting users,
not machines. As near as I can determine, the level of user support
is about equal, whether Windoze, Mac, or Linux.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


The support costs I've noticed, starting with IBM 360/65 (1973), are
people followed by people followed by people. Somewhere below the
people is hardware.

Been in the middle of it since 1975 starting as a programming assistant
in a college data center. Where we presented decks to the priests.

As a programming assistant the most frequent things I saw were questions
from the grad students like - "How do I make it fit?", "How do I make it
fast?", "Why doesn't it work?". Users who would spend 18 hours a day
dug into the math of what they were trying to solve, but refused to
spend 4 hours once learning the tool they used to solve the simulations.

I knew nothing of what they were trying to prove. But I always managed
to get the programs to fit, run fast as possible, and not "doesn't work".

Some things never change.

tom
K0TAR

Disclaimer - this comment is about academics and offices, not data centers.

Michael Coslo wrote:
It's 100 percent true. An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account, because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

I'm not that sure about that. At work we still have Windows XP machines
bought in 2001, and while they are very slow they still work and can
be used e.g. as Citrix terminals or for Microsoft Office 2003.

They still receive security updates from Microsoft.

Apple machines from that era are long obsolete and receive no support
at all.

On 10/10/2011 5:17 AM, Rob wrote:
Michael wrote:
It's 100 percent true. An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account, because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

I'm not that sure about that. At work we still have Windows XP machines
bought in 2001, and while they are very slow they still work and can
be used e.g. as Citrix terminals or for Microsoft Office 2003.

They still receive security updates from Microsoft.

Apple machines from that era are long obsolete and receive no support
at all.


Don't think I was arguing about that. If you can run XP on the computer,
M$ will send updates. Be careful though. I had a HP Pavilion, bought in
2005, and at one particular point in the update process, it gets hosed.
I ended up having to take it offline after the third time it happened.

My G5 machines still get updates.

Look, if you want, use the Windows machines. I don't really care. I do
have in depth personal experience with both, and if my job was to
support the Mac's I'd be out of a job. With the Windows machines, there
is a lot of job security. Believe or do not believe.

My favorite part of working with the Windows fans is when I talk about
someone getting a virus, or an update hosing their machine, the first
thing they say is "Oh, I've never gotten a virus, then they go on to
describe "there was this one time" and tell about how they got some
virus that they had to wipe the drive to cure (or somesuch)

If you are happy with Windows, and it never gives you any problems, then
by all means use and enjoy.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -