Here is a potential candidate for the award.

http://labs.pcw.co.uk/2007/01/os_x_is_a_ripof.html

My 2 cents:

Once you factor in the price of how many times the average user takes their machine to the shop for a spyware & virus removal… I am still ahead financially if I bought every version of OS X. Now, if you are a geek, you can save some money - if you reload Windows yourself. But, with lost time in productivity by fighting all of the security holes, viruses, spyware, updating this and that, makes OS X even more valuable at it’s modest price.

That guy didn’t get his three steps to the door, judging by the comments.

As my alter-ego has just stated on that page…
The author of this silly article has obviously done no research into Mac OS X.
He is simply not qualified to state which OS is superior to the other in terms of value either monetary or otherwise.
We have a name for guys like him.
LOSER.
ha-ha!

This article is some kind of Joke. This guy obviously didn’t own a Mac.

Note: The price he quotes for Vista is the “OEM” version. This infringes Microsoft’s licence agreement unless purchased with a new PC hence is illegal. Two things:

1) It would be really easy to make MacOS X come out cheaper by installing illegal copies of updates. Easy to do since MacOS doesn’t have Microsoft’s wonderful “activation” system.

2) Do the maths again factoring in the price of new hardware to make his Vista purchase legal.

Just my 2p

Now that deserves a dumb ass alert if I have ever read a Article that was anything but true. Speaking of dumb ass windows users that over clock their processors and boards if their “bios” allows it, they are just asking to burn up their mother boards, like they don’t have enough problems. over clocking is forcing the clock processor to run faster than it’s meant to and makes components on the mother board run allot hotter than specs allow for under warranty limitations, yet almost all my friends that are P.C. do it and burn stuff out every year. I have a custom made P.C. and I have over clocked it and it does not make any noticeable difference to me. Over clock to high and go to reboot and it won’t, hope you know schematics and can find that bios jumper/LOL.

I went off subject here, but I read that Idiot’s article and then the part about over clocking and it got me going. P.C. crap!

one1step1 - 31 January 2007 09:00 PM

Once you factor in the price of how many times the average user takes their machine to the shop for a spyware & virus removal… I am still ahead financially if I bought every version of OS X. Now, if you are a geek, you can save some money - if you reload Windows yourself. But, with lost time in productivity by fighting all of the security holes, viruses, spyware, updating this and that, makes OS X even more valuable at it’s modest price.

We do studies at my school almost every year to figure out the total cost of ownership of our computers. Macs are always lower in cost per machine. Macs last a little longer, require less system admin effort, and the students take care of them better than they do the few dozen Dells we have.

We definitely see a lower TCO with our macs, not to mention the macusers just seem happier.  Imagine that.

Art G. - 01 February 2007 01:21 AM

As my alter-ego has just stated on that page…
The author of this silly article has obviously done no research into Mac OS X.
He is simply not qualified to state which OS is superior to the other in terms of value either monetary or otherwise.

That’s probably the case for most PC owners, if not most Mac owners. We tend to buy based upon only a few criteria, most of which are probably simple, emotional, or ill-informed.

My father has a PC which runs Windows XP. IT’s about six years old now and runs fine. It’s a little slow to boot up and the firewall is on, and it sits behind his home router/firewall. Six years is a long time for a single OS these days.

In that same time period I spent $129 on Jaguar, $129 on Panther, $129 on Tiger, $129 on Leopard. That’s $516 EXTRA beyond the cost of a Mac running Puma (I don’t still have that Mac, thankfully), and about the same price as a new low end PC running Vista.

He’s happy.

Go figure.

Yes but see you had a CHOICE to upgrade...your dad had not options until Vista, and I bet that 6 year old PC wouldn’t run so well with Vista, whereas my 6-7 yr. old PM g4 450 is perfectly happy running Leopard.

Kate MacKenzie - 10 May 2008 09:17 PM

That’s probably the case for most PC owners, if not most Mac owners. We tend to buy based upon only a few criteria, most of which are probably simple, emotional, or ill-informed.

My father has a PC which runs Windows XP. IT’s about six years old now and runs fine. It’s a little slow to boot up and the firewall is on, and it sits behind his home router/firewall. Six years is a long time for a single OS these days.

I think you’re right. The decision making processes are more emotional and limited to just a smattering of elements. People do that in general. Look at how politicians are elected.