Boxers or briefs? Real or not real? Which is better, Mac or PC? Now it’s, “Which is less expensive? Mac or PC?”
There is just no way to put away the never ending Windows and PC vs. the Mac issue. But let’s try anyway.
First, there’s a need to clarify positions. I’ve tried boxers, but prefer briefs. Real or not real? Does it matter? OK, if it matters, then I want real that look, well, unreal.
Second, which is better, Mac or PC? That one has already been settled, right. Remember, this is Mac360, so we’re about Macs, and so what if PCs have a 90-percent market share. It’s going down, while the Mac’s share is going up.
Better is not the same as gargantuan market share—unless we’re talking about the iPod vs. everything else that attempts to play music in your pocket.
Third, at least three times a year, some online publication is required to do a Mac vs. PC cost comparison, or Windows Vista vs. OS X Tiger comparison. I don’t know the exact statute, but I’m sure it was passed during the Clinton-Gore administration.
Common wisdom for many years was that the Mac was a great machine, but much more expensive than a PC. That was then, this is now. In an age when things change overnight, it is not refreshing to see old wisdom die hard.
A few years ago, we figured out that comparably equipped PCs actually cost the same or more than a Mac. No, that’s not a fudge. It’s argumentation. Yes, you can find a PC, many of them, in fact, that are cheaper than a Mac. That’s not the point.
When we buy a computer, most of us don’t just buy the hardware, or the OS—we buy a computer, Mac or PC, to perform certain functions which we require.
Email, browse the internet, word processing, graphics, spreadsheet, music, movies, digital photos. All that.
As with many purchases, we do price comparisons. The myth that Macs cost more than PCs appears to be fading now that Apple has embraced Intel’s chips inside.
Macs being, in general, more secure and less problematic that most PCs has helped shed a number of Mac vs. PC myths.
So, for shoppers who want a computer these days, the choices have expanded, and more often than not, Apple’s flagship Mac lineup shows up on shopping lists. Why? Piece for piece, feature for feature, Macs cost less than PCs. Mostly. Well, sometimes.
According to Scot Finnie of Computerworld, Macs can definitely be less expensive than comparable PCs. Of course, any comparison of prices and costs should include a discussion of TCO—total cost of ownership—except today. Macs cost less to set up, run, maintain, than PCs (save that argument for another day).
Scot does what you’d expect of a mainstream online publication—exploit the masses of readers, Mac and PC. What you, the reader, will get is a three-page article on why Macs are now cheaper than PCs. Sometimes. No comparison is worth anything these days if there’s not an ample supply of hedging, dodging, and weasel words.
Some Mac models, such as the MacBook Pro, and MacPro, can’t even be touched by Dell, piece for piece, feature for feature. Of course, that’s just hardware. There’s little comparison of Windows Vista vs. Mac OS X Tiger. After all, a personal computer isn’t just hardware.
What about what comes on the hardware? For that, we turn to Jeff Wilson of Laptop Magazine, who does a decent shootout of OS X Tiger vs. Windows Vista.
Something really strange is going on in the world these days. As Chris Rock said:
Computerworld and Laptop Magazine are pointing out that Macs are less expensive than PCs and OS X Tiger is better than Windows. Period. Does it matter? Yes. We’ve waited a long time for a measure of vindication, and here it is, out in the public for all to see. Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Apple. I hereby declare that the debate is over.