Macs Cheaper Than PCs

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I'm bored and have nothing better to do than to throw some gasoline on a very touchy subject around here; the costs of Macs in comparison to PCs. Came across a link where some knowledgeable guy computed the total cost of ownership for macs and pcs and .... drumroll...



MACS ARE HALF THE COST OF PCS



This ought to get a good one started.

Link below for details.

http://www.networkworld.com/best/200...schwartau.html
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    "The results of this TCO astounded me. For my small enterprise, owning a WinTel box for three years costs twice as much as owning a MacTel. When I talked with several of our clients, I found that the burdened cost of ownership per PC - just for support - ranged from $1,300 to $4,000 per year."



    Well, I have two theories.



    1: They use their computers as blunt objects to upon cans of sardines with.



    2: They click on every single "fungame.exe" sort of attachment they receive.
  • Reply 2 of 22
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    "The results of this TCO astounded me. For my small enterprise, owning a WinTel box for three years costs twice as much as owning a MacTel."



    Strange that he thinks MacTels have a lower TCO than WinTels, seeing as MacTels have been out there for (not even) 2 months. How can you judge the TCO of a MacTel over three years and then compare that to the WinTels when MacTels are... you know, 2 months old?
  • Reply 3 of 22
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    They must have just assumed that since Apple's support and replacement policies and the standard of quality and security of their OS stayed the same between the PowerPC and Intel switch, the only thing that really changed was one component.
  • Reply 4 of 22
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Assumed? When doing a TCO report, never assume anything.
  • Reply 5 of 22
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    Strange that he thinks MacTels have a lower TCO than WinTels, seeing as MacTels have been out there for (not even) 2 months. How can you judge the TCO of a MacTel over three years and then compare that to the WinTels when MacTels are... you know, 2 months old?



    It doesn't matter that the PPC to Intel switch happened unless there is some cataclysmic new cost that the CPU switch creates.



    <looks around>



    Nope, no cataclysmic new costs floating around out here. OS X is still OS X. Costs are gonna be pretty close to what they were before.
  • Reply 6 of 22
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    The user generated links at Apple and Dell didnt work as planned (being dynamic and all) so here is the cut/paste version





    APPLE

    Power Mac G5 Dual-core 2.3GHz

    Part Number: Z0AV

    2.3GHz Dual-core PowerPC G5

    500GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm

    16x SuperDrive DL (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)

    4GB 533 DDR2 ECC SDRAM- 4x1GB

    Mac OS X - U.S. English

    Accessory kit

    QUADRO FX 4500 512MB SDRAM

    Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mouse - U.S. English

    Estimated Ship: 2-4 business days

    \tRemove \t$5,549.00 \t$5,549.00



    DELL.



    Dell Precision 380 \t

    *Intel® Pentium® D 820, 2.80GHz/800MHz/2x1MB L2 cache, Dual-core

    *Genuine Windows® XP Professional, SP2 with Media

    *4GB, 533MHz, DDR2 SDRAM Memory, ECC (4 DIMMS)

    *512MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 4500, Dual Monitor DVI or VGA Capable

    *500GB SATA 3.0GB/s with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache? w/out RAID

    *16XDVD+/-RW w/ Sonic Digital Media, Sonic DVDit! SE,CyberLink PowerDVD

    *3 Year On-site Economy Plan



    Miscellaneous \tPrecision 380.

    TOTAL:$3,259.00



  • Reply 7 of 22
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    Macs are cheap? is that so?



    PowerMac G5 verses Dell workstation





    Face it, Apples are mmore expencive, facts are facts.




    And you were too cheap with your time to read the article?
  • Reply 8 of 22
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    $3000/pc/yr for maintanance is a retarded figure, what are tehy counting in that??? surly they know the IT guy does more than just desktop repair...
  • Reply 9 of 22
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by e1618978

    And you were too cheap with your time to read the article?



    I know they are talking about Mactels, but the ones out now are the same price as thier PPC predecessors, so I assume that will continue.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    fahlmanfahlman Posts: 737member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    I know they are talking about Mactels, but the ones out now are the same price as thier PPC predecessors, so I assume that will continue.



    Do you have a clue what TCO is? Total Cost of Ownership. The price of the computer is one factor in TCO.
  • Reply 11 of 22
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    Assumed? When doing a TCO report, never assume anything.



    NO SHIT, but they evidently did assume, and those are the grounds I'm guessing they speculated upon.
  • Reply 12 of 22
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    A lot of it has to do with the fact that PC's are generic. So it's likely that the percentage of idiots who use PCs is much higher than the percentage of idiots who own macs. In my experience, an idiot can have more impact on TCO that anything else.
  • Reply 13 of 22
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    It doesn't matter that the PPC to Intel switch happened unless there is some cataclysmic new cost that the CPU switch creates.



    <looks around>



    Nope, no cataclysmic new costs floating around out here. OS X is still OS X. Costs are gonna be pretty close to what they were before.



    But it does bring out another cost; the cost of waiting for Photoshop to batch-process those 250 6MP images that need to be processed for the company's next weekly magazine. Oh-oh. It takes 3 hours now instead of 30 minutes because of Rosetta!



    If your time isn't money, and time/money spent waiting for MacTels to process those 250 images for you isn't a cost when discussing TCO, then yes, no "new cost" has been added to the equation.



    And Photoshop is just one example. But, hey, don't let that ruin the picture of a rosy TCO from a guy who "owns" a "small company" yet keeps calling things by their fanboi-created names, WinTel and MacTel, as if he were some 14 year old who just discovered "teh intarweb".
  • Reply 14 of 22
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    That's ridiculous and you know it. The iMac isn't a fair comparison to current PowerMacs. The MacBook CoreDuo is faster than a PB G4 even in Rosetta. My iMac CoreDuo is faster than my PB G4. So what's shipping now is not the situation you cite. By the time PowerMacs ship it will likely be equivalent or better on that line.



    So for the time being my speed is worst case equivalent so no time-cost loss there. If I was upgrading a three year or older box then I gain in total speed today, the exact opposite of your broken point. Once Adobe ships the Universal version of CS the equation goes even farther in favor of the recent MacTel machines.
  • Reply 15 of 22
    Nice to see that Ron Jeremy likes Macs.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    Yeah, this is pretty crazy. It is clearly cheaper to own a PC. I don't need any maintance work done to my computer because I know what I am doing. I realize your everyday idiot probably doesn't, though. Your everyday idiot is just ignoring anything that isn't right, and keeps right on ticking rather than throw more money into computer maintance.
  • Reply 17 of 22
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tensdanny38

    Yeah, this is pretty crazy. It is clearly cheaper to own a PC. I don't need any maintance work done to my computer because I know what I am doing. I realize your everyday idiot probably doesn't, though. Your everyday idiot is just ignoring anything that isn't right, and keeps right on ticking rather than throw more money into computer maintance.



    This is akin to saying "that article claiming that a Honda Civic is cheaper to operate than a Yugo is nonsense. Sure Yugos require a great deal more maintenance, but I'm a mechanic and I don't mind pulling the tranny from time to time. People who aren't mechanics are idiots, so I guess for them a Civic might be cheaper. Idiots."
  • Reply 18 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    I don't mind pulling the tranny



    Hey Now....

  • Reply 19 of 22
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JohnnySmith

    Hey Now....





  • Reply 20 of 22
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    But it does bring out another cost; the cost of waiting for Photoshop to batch-process those 250 6MP images that need to be processed for the company's next weekly magazine. Oh-oh. It takes 3 hours now instead of 30 minutes because of Rosetta!







    Yeah and what about lost time waiting for your pc to get cpr? Your argument does however make some sense now if you use a intel mac. If you have an old ppc mac, which you should if you live and die with PS, it doesn't.



    I know that article refered to intel macs but I'm assuming that tco costs for ppc and intels macs are essentially the same. You may take issue with that assumption, but I would argue that, if anything, tco costs of ppc macs are less since they probably have less 'bugs' than new intel macs.
Sign In or Register to comment.