Resolving the price issue

100 Comments

View All Comments

• Anonymous - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

  #29
  
  "I can take a Panther based Mac and run it on an NT network just fine"
  
  I didn't say you can't. Perhaps you should read my post again as you seem to have confused what I wrote for something else (e.g. TCO mentioned before).
  
  "The catechism that Macs are less virus-threatened due to low market share is partial truth....the architecture of Panther compared with XP also makes a difference."
  
  Considering that many viruses are executables throws that argument out the window. If there is a Mac virus and you don't have AV protection when you open that file you get infected. I don't see the mythical powers of Panther coming into play here. There are viruses for every platform including OS X. We wouldn't really know the true security of OS X unless it was put to the test in a higher usage environment. So while the Macs paltry market share and it's benefit on the security of the platform might be a "partial truth", it is a truth nonetheless.
  
  "if for no other reason than to catch Windows viruses and stop their spread to colleagues on PCs."
  
  Wow, that sounds exactly like what is posted on Symantec's website. So is this feature of Norton 9.0 for the Mac representative of OS X's superior security? Considerig Symantec makes this product I wouldn't think so. And so what if it does detect PC viruses? Aren't you running AV protection on your PCs?
  
  From Symantec's site:
  
  Now it also finds and removes PC viruses to ensure that you don't spread infections to colleagues
  
  "I would argue that including macs on the enterprise network would decrease the 'amount of crap' that you already deal with"
  
  
  I doubt that greatly as it is another platform I have to support, implement, and maintain. That requires different software, different licensing, and different enterprise AV protection. Why would I include Macs just as a threat deterrent? If there are users that require a Mac so be it. Lets face it, it's a Windows world in the enterprise and Apple's market share can be measure in the negative in that segment.
  
  I like Macs and I've been using a Mac since System 6.0 way back in the days of the dogcow. I even have my old Performa 476 in the garage. I have no quarrel with the Mac and dig it however, Mac specific users tend to have big heads and even bigger claims. To say the Mac is more secure than windows is comparing apples to oranges as they operate in two different worlds: The niche and the mainstream.

• brichpmr - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

  #26, I can take a Panther based Mac and run it on an NT network just fine. The catechism that Macs are less virus-threatened due to low market share is partial truth....the architecture of Panther compared with XP also makes a difference. No Mac user should run their rig without virus protection, if for no other reason than to catch Windows viruses and stop their spread to colleagues on PCs. I would argue that including macs on the enterprise network would decrease the 'amount of crap' that you already deal with.

• ROBOT - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

  ALL YOUR MACS ARE BELONG TO US!!!

• Question - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

  Have you ever hacked into mainframes? I have, whew and it isn't very easy, there's things about mainframes that make me feel queasy. Have you ever hacked into mainframes?

• Agreed - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

  #25 I agree. I don't have to hose my computer down before shut it down. Most of the maintenance that runs on my comp is automated when I'm AWAY from my computer. If I'm getting brakes on my car I take the car to the shop and do other things while the mainteance is performed. I don't sit there and watch them do it. So the whole issue of detoxing your computer and the 90 minutes being spent is all relative to what you do on your computer. Maybe #21 is looking at a lot of porn....ya never know. ;P
  
  "I use XP and Panther daily and admin XP, so I know how much money my company has spent to continually fight off the vermin that affect Windows users. That expenditure in resource directly contributes to both my job security and, in a negative way, to my company bottom line. I have seen no compelling evidence that TCO ever favors XP in relation to Panther. I favor a heterogeneous client base...that diversity helps to stunt the spread of exploits."
  
  Actually, if you read post I was referring to a lower TCO on the Mac, not on XP. Factoring in the appreciate/depreciation and Appleware I believe it can be disputed as such. It's all in how you look at it.
  
  Once again, it comes down to the threat factor. There are far less threats on the Mac because the Mac has less market share. The PC has paved the way for mainstream computing do in part to the cost factor (not necessarily a good thing) and Microsoft's dominance in the OS market.
  
  The problem with your argument is that ALL companies spend quite a deal on preventive maintance and disaster prevention. That's what you have to do. Would you have a Mac based network with no virus protection? Of course not. Even though the Mac has far fewer viruses because virus writers don't waste their time on 2%. That's a good thing but that is a false sense of security.
  
  When you factor in the domain environment securing PCs is a lot easier (and harder) thanks in part to group policy, and management tools that work better on Windows PCs; that is, if you're running a windows network and using windows PCS. I can deploy an OS, software, ghost images all without leaving my desk via RIS and SMS. The inclusion of a good company wide policy of computer usage and locking down rights will prevent a lot from happening. I don't see the inclusion of Macs in a network environment as any great plus. It's just another platform you need to support seperately from all the other crap you already have to.

• SD - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

  #21, at the risk of sounding obnoxious (which isn't so much a risk as it is a given), I don't think you can really say that you spend a lot more money because you spend 90 minutes more a month detoxing. (This also isn't a very conservative figure; in fact, it's on the high side if you're cautious.) Time is money and all that, but is your salary actually docked by the amount of time (in percent) a month your PC spends detoxing itself? If so, you have a very weird job.
  
  I'm not saying frequent detoxing can't interfere with productivity. It certainly can. But there's a difference between starting Ad-Aware and Spybot once a week before you go out to lunch and starting it when you were in the middle of working. Intelligent budgeting of time should be able to completely nullify any productivity penalty such minor amounts of time used would incur, unless you have to work 24 hours a day.

• wbwither - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

  One fact that must be taken into account in the pricing debate is that MACS HOLD VALUE to an extent that almost defies logic in the tech world. There is a robust used market for Macs, and it's seemingly linear with respect to processor power and price.
  
  Take a look at used G4's on eBay. A G4/400MHz/512MB/30GB/DVD (released in September 1999 -- Anand reviewed the PIII 533B & 600B at that time) is about to go for nearly $300 ($280 at the moment). Try to find a desktop PIII 600 for $300. A dual-867MHz G4 (released August 2002) is going for over $1000. Anand introduced the Thoroughbred Athlon XP 2600+/2400+ that same month. Again, try to find *any* AXP 2600+ that would reasonably sell for over $1000, when that same $1000 will buy you a pretty kickass A64 system with a Radeon 9800 Pro (going from the latest AT buying guides). Finally, a dual 2.0GHz G5 still sells for $2500 on Apple's site. Anand could easily get over $2000 for his machine on eBay. I can't think of a single used Dell, Compaq, etc. that would reasonably go for over $2000 on eBay.
  
  Now to explain what I meant about the linear price to performance thing.... a single-proc 400MHz G4 has about 1/10 the performance of a dual 2GHz G5. Now, $280 ~= 1/10 * 2500 (the price of a new dual 2GHz G5). The dual-proc 867Mhz G4 = about 43% of the processor performance of a dual-2GHz G5. Now, .43 * 2,500 = $1083, very close to what that G4 was going for, just a few hours before the end of the auction.
  
  So, a new Mac is almost more of an investment than a new PC. The PC's market price will deteriorate very rapidly when new, competing chips come out; and Intel and AMD's price structure is already pretty absurd anyway, what with the chip prices rising almost exponentially as you bump up in speed. That means that your $800 chip will be worth $200 in a few months. Not the case with Apple, who prices their machines more reasonably. With Apple, 25% more speed = a less than 25% increase in price. None of this "you'll pay twice the price for 200MHz more" crap like we get with Intel and AMD. Of course, it's hard to be sure about this since Apple doesn't sell just the bare processors (and the market for used Macs focuses mostly on used whole Macs, not Mac parts), but overall their pricing seems much more reasonable, and this leads to much more reasonable levels of depreciation.

• brichpmr - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

  #22, I use XP and Panther daily and admin XP, so I know how much money my company has spent to continually fight off the vermin that affect Windows users. That expenditure in resource directly contributes to both my job security and, in a negative way, to my company bottom line. I have seen no compelling evidence that TCO ever favors XP in relation to Panther. I favor a heterogeneous client base...that diversity helps to stunt the spread of exploits.

• Noah Body - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

  #21
  
  When I think of "out of box security" I think of a more tested, refined, and secured product "out of the box". A product that is already poised to tackle existing and upcoming security vulverabilities or not have them (which is impossible). OS X is only a more secure platform (if truly that) so long as it remains obscure. It's the same argument for Linux.
  
  Its like me saying that I'm better off riding a bike to work because 95% of people drive cars whereas 2% ride bicycles. I'm safer because I don't have to drive on the freeway, and the TCO is cheaper (no insurnace, no gas, so called maintenance; use all the free Appleware). But what if that 2% became 10% or even 15%? I'm sure you'd be hearing a lot more about bicycle accidents. It's the same with the Mac except you're driving a $2,000+ bicycle.
  
  Is that a good thing? Perhaps for some. For me I don't want to pay a premium for a namesake (though we do it for Windows) or for software and hardware that is generally more expensive than it's PC counterpart. This really factors into play when you consider that the brick and mortar sales of PCs are from people who think price rather than security.
  
  That being said I'd much rather work on a Mac and cruise in style than a linux box. The Mac is a very nice bike all set up to go, Linux is a bike you have to build yourself.
  
  

• brichpmr - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

  #17, I agree that careful PC users should have minimal problems, but if I spend 1 1/2 hours per month maintaining my Windows system against malware (and that may be conservative), then the cost advantage for the PC goes right out the window within the first year.
  
  #18, regarding 2% market share, we all know that OSX will not see even 10% of the market anytime soon; so for whatever the reasons (obscurity or better permissions structure), Mac users have much better out of the box security, and that should be important to 95% of average users who just want an enjoyable and safe computing environment.