If AVG isn't consuming any resources, then it isn't doing anything.
No antivirus software is comprehensive.
Apple earns zero profit on hardware when one buys a Mac OS X upgrade.
In my many years of extensively using Windows (NT... 2000... XP), to my knowledge I was never hit with a virus, but I am ecstatic not to be dealing with the issue since largely abandoning Windows in 2006. The disaster that is Vista makes me even happier.
But here I am again wasting time on other people's viruses.
If AVG isn't consuming any resources, then it isn't doing anything.
No antivirus software is comprehensive.
Where is Apple's profit on hardware when one buys a Mac OS X upgrade?
It only needs the resources when it needs to do something
I'd hazard a guess that the majority of OSX sales come attached to Apple hardware. The only reason you'd be buying further copies of OSX is to install it on your Apple hardware, which once again you've already paid Apple for. Just think of it like the iPod Touch, where you've paid out a lot of begin with, but then get heavily subsidised OS updates (with a small fee attached) along the life of the product. Microsoft doesn't have that sort of closed eco-system, so the cost of its products are higher, but the hardware in which its products can run on is much cheaper.
Good news for you then, because definition updates require no interaction and very minimal resources, and active sheild means you don't need to actually run scans. So count that reason out
I used AVG free for years on my Windows machines, and about 6 months ago I switched to Avira free since it uses a lot less resources. It still uses resources, though. Especially during system startup and definition updates. They're automated, yes, but they still use resources and the effect on the system is notable. To suggest that anti-virus programs use minimal resources is inaccurate.
Active shield is not fool-proof. If it were, anti-virus programs wouldn't even have a "scan system" feature. On my Windows machines I run a scan at least once every couple of weeks.
In addition, I also run Windows Defender, which is completely automated, but again, that's one more application using resources to protect your machine against malicious software.
I also run the disk cleanup and defrag utilities once every couple weeks.
This constant maintenance has become second nature to me, but the time adds up. For all its attempts to be a better OS, Windows still requires a lot of attention on the part of the end user to keep running smoothly and do what you need it to do.
Plugging in a USB flash drive for the first time and waiting for 30 seconds while Windows informs you through various annoying pop-ups that it has recognized, is installing, and has installed your USB drive is more than just a mere nuisance to some people.
Some would rather plug in the drive, have an icon appear on the desktop almost instantaneously and GO!
All these little things add up and contribute to the entire OS experience. Macs are a very worthwhile alternative for many people who don't want to have to worry about all those little "nuisances".
It only needs the resources when it needs to do something
Then I guess you're sure it's doing something [useful] because it is after all consuming resources.
Quote:
I'd hazard a guess that the majority of OSX sales come attached to Apple hardware.
Oh, sorry, you are wrong. There is no attachment. Every Mac comes with the latest version of Mac OS X Ultimate. When it is purchased--if it is purchased--a Mac OS X upgrade comes later--perhaps 18 months or more later since that's roughly the product cycle for new versions from Apple.
A tier 1 hardware manufacturer like Apple can not afford to subsidize multiple generations of OS updates. How many hardware manufactures give away OS updates? Even M$ struggles with giving OS downgrades.
I used AVG free for years on my Windows machines, and about 6 months ago I switched to Avira free since it uses a lot less resources. It still uses resources, though. Especially during system startup and definition updates. They're automated, yes, but they still use resources and the effect on the system is notable. To suggest that anti-virus programs use minimal resources is inaccurate.
Active shield is not fool-proof. If it were, anti-virus programs wouldn't even have a "scan system" feature. On my Windows machines I run a scan at least once every couple of weeks.
In addition, I also run Windows Defender, which is completely automated, but again, that's one more application using resources to protect your machine against malicious software.
I also run the disk cleanup and defrag utilities once every couple weeks.
This constant maintenance has become second nature to me, but the time adds up. For all its attempts to be a better OS, Windows still requires a lot of attention on the part of the end user to keep running smoothly and do what you need it to do.
Plugging in a USB flash drive for the first time and waiting for 30 seconds while Windows informs you through various annoying pop-ups that it has recognized, is installing, and has installed your USB drive is more than just a mere nuisance to some people.
Some would rather plug in the drive, have an icon appear on the desktop almost instantaneously and GO!
All these little things add up and contribute to the entire OS experience. Macs are a very worthwhile alternative for many people who don't want to have to worry about all those little "nuisances".
I can see where you're coming from, but it does these things once, and never again. How is that so damned terrible and impossible to live with that you need to spend hundreds more for an Apple computer? Are there seriously people out there who have such an irritable personality that they can't stand 20 seconds of a USB device installing? Wow, is all I can say if there are.
Then I guess you're sure it's doing something [useful] because it is after all consuming resources.
Oh, sorry, you are wrong. There is no attachment. Every Mac comes with the latest version of Mac OS X Ultimate. When it is purchased--if it is purchased--a Mac OS X upgrade comes later--perhaps 18 months or more later since that's roughly the product cycle for new versions from Apple.
A tier 1 hardware manufacturer like Apple can not afford to subsidize multiple generations of OS updates. How many hardware manufactures give away OS updates? Even M$ struggles with giving OS downgrades.
I don't quite follow you. The cost of OSX is factored into the hardware sale. The hardware sale nets Apple a massive return, which they can subsequently use to subsidise the cost of future OS updates, just like they do with the iPod Touch. So effectively, you pay up front for the future OS revisions, which are then cheaper when they become available. In contrast, in the world of the PC, you don't pay up front for OS versions, but pay for them at full price if you do want them, when they become available.
I can see where you're coming from, but it does these things once, and never again. How is that so damned terrible and impossible to live with that you need to spend hundreds more for an Apple computer? Are there seriously people out there who have such an irritable personality that they can't stand 20 seconds of a USB device installing? Wow, is all I can say if there are.
Well to me, the USB thing wouldn't be such a bother. Like I said, I personally own machines running Windows. It obviously depends on the individual and what he/she wants. If you're using a machine mostly for entertainment (surfing the net, gaming, youtube, IRC, video streaming, IM, Facebook, etc.) then no, you're probably not going to care that your only USB flash drive takes 20+ seconds to be installed the first time you plug it in.
However, say you're using your computer to conduct scientific research, and your samples of whatever it is you're studying are on 50 separate USB drives of various makes that have been submitted by people involved in the study. You're looking at up to 25 minutes of your time just installing the things. Is the 25 minutes worth it? To some people it may not matter. To others, that 25 minutes is time that could be spent on something more productive. Granted, this is a far-fetched example.
But I'm just trying to point out that it is not for me or you to decide what someone else should consider worth their time and investment. It is up to the individual. I'm sure there are many people out there who have bought Macs and decided it was a terrible investment for them. There are also many people out there who have bought Macs and wished they had bought one sooner.
Well to me, the USB thing wouldn't be such a bother. Like I said, I personally own machines running Windows. It obviously depends on the individual and what he/she wants. If you're using a machine mostly for entertainment (surfing the net, gaming, youtube, IRC, video streaming, IM, Facebook, etc.) then no, you're probably not going to care that your only USB flash drive takes 20+ seconds to be installed the first time you plug it in.
However, say you're using your computer to conduct scientific research, and your samples of whatever it is you're studying are on 50 separate USB drives of various makes that have been submitted by people involved in the study. You're looking at up to 25 minutes of your time just installing the things. Is the 25 minutes worth it? To some people it may not matter. To others, that 25 minutes is time that could be spent on something more productive. Granted, this is a far-fetched example.
But I'm just trying to point out that it is not for me or you to decide what someone else should consider worth their time and investment. It is up to the individual. I'm sure there are many people out there who have bought Macs and decided it was a terrible investment for them. There are also many people out there who have bought Macs and wished they had bought one sooner.
Yeah I agree entirely. The problem is that these nuiances are being over-egged to the absolute extremes by people around here. For instance, spending hours each month installing and configuring anti-virus? That is simply absolute rubbish, since the whole thing is about 5 minutes tops, once, the first time you install it. Then people are moaning about the cost of Windows, whilst conveniently forgetting that they paid considerably more for their Mac to begin with. There's a fine line between being a fan, and being a fanboy, but a lot of people around here have not only crossed that, but done so running at full speed. I am absolutely a fan of where Apple is going with the iPhone, but I am not so blinkered to see that there is much improvement to be made.
Just like premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer: not enough to sustain OS development.
That's where you've run astray.
So you have every confidence that if Apple ever allowed OSX to run on any hardware from any manufacturer, the price would remain the same? I'm more inclined to think that if that were the case, the cost of the software would go up to cover the loss of hardware revenue and extra support required.
So you have every confidence that if Apple ever allowed OSX to run on any hardware from any manufacturer, the price would remain the same? I'm more inclined to think that if that were the case, the cost of the software would go up to cover the loss of hardware revenue and extra support required.
You are the one claiming the net profit Apple makes on its hardware is sufficient to pay for the continued development and support of future Mac OS X versions (while still keeping investors happy). I just don't see that, b/c Apple's hardware prices are not out of line with premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer and b/c of what M$ charges for primary licenses and upgrades despite having 10X the market share of Apple.
You are the one claiming the net profit Apple makes on its hardware is sufficient to pay for the continued development and support of future Mac OS X versions (while still keeping investors happy). I just don't see that, b/c Apple's hardware prices are not out of line with premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer and b/c of what M$ charges for primary licenses and upgrades despite having 10X the market share of Apple.
Disclaimer: I am not invested in AAPL or MSFT.
But it's very well known that Apple's profit margins are very high, so it's not at all obsurd to think some of that goes to the continued developement of OSX, which as a result means they can sell it for less. In comparison, Microsoft makes absolutely nothing from the sale of hardware, so its entire profit and development costs have to come from the sale of the software. So really, it's a no brainer that a copy of Windows is going to be £100 more expensive than a copy of OSX. However, you probably paid over £100 less for your non-Apple computer in the first place.
I think your logic is a little bit twisted there. So you're saying that if it came on a $3000 computer, it would suddenly be a good product even though nothing had changed about it? I've used it for many years prior to switching to Avast, and it's been fine. It's amazing how many people think that because a product is free it is automatically rubbish, and that the paid for product is obviously much better.
Doesn't matter, I've done something like 2,500 virus removals on systems in the shop I work at over the last 3 years, I'm still finding multiple infections on systems running AVG. People bring in the computer because they say it runs slow. I remove the viruses with ESET NOD 32, runs better but slow, remove AVG and installed NOD 32, there was night and day difference, and this happens EVERY TIME i've done it.
But AVG will run faster on a more expensive PC because it likely won't have a 1.3 GHz Celeron Processor with 512 MB RAM.
Doesn't matter, I've done something like 2,500 virus removals on systems in the shop I work at over the last 3 years, I'm still finding multiple infections on systems running AVG. People bring in the computer because they say it runs slow. I remove the viruses with ESET NOD 32, runs better but slow, remove AVG and installed NOD 32, there was night and day difference, and this happens EVERY TIME i've done it.
But AVG will run faster on a more expensive PC because it likely won't have a 1.3 GHz Celeron Processor with 512 MB RAM.
That's the main reason I switched from AVG because it's got a bit bloated. Avast is quick and slim.
But it's very well known that Apple's profit margins are very high, so it's not at all obsurd to think some of that goes to the continued developement of OSX, which as a result means they can sell it for less.
You say Apple's profits are so much higher, but you've not shown this to be supernormal compared to other premium hardware manufacturers nor shown how Apple's profit margin from a 4% world-wide market share is high enough to support future Mac OS X development and support while leaving enough to satisfy investors.
Quote:
In comparison, Microsoft makes absolutely nothing from the sale of hardware, so its entire profit and development costs have to come from the sale of the software.
Right, you think M$ puts so much effort into its Genuine Advantage Program because it gives Windows away to hardware OEMs?
Quote:
So really, it's a no brainer that a copy of Windows is going to be £100 more expensive than a copy of OSX. However, you probably paid over £100 less for your non-Apple computer in the first place.
You say Apple's profits are so much higher, but you've not shown this to be supernormal compared to other premium hardware manufacturers nor shown how Apple's profit margin from a 4% world-wide market share is high enough to support future Mac OS X development and support while leaving enough to satisfy investors.
Right, you think M$ puts so much effort into its Genuine Advantage Program because it gives Windows away to hardware OEMs?
huh?
Sorry, but I really don't know how much simpler I can make it for you to understand. Let's see if you can understand this...
Apple makes hardware and software. The 2 are interlinked. Therefore, it wouldn't be outrageous to suggest that they money they make selling the hardware is used to develope the software.
In contrast, Microsoft makes only the software, so their entire development costs and profits have to come from that software sale.
Net result of this is, the Microsoft software is more expensive than the Apple software.
Apple makes hardware and software. The 2 are interlinked. Therefore, it wouldn't be outrageous to suggest that they money they make selling the hardware is used to develope the software.
If Apple uses its hardware profits to develop future versions of Mac OS X, how does it manage to design and build those gawd awful unibody MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros? How does Apple get Nehalems a month before anyone else? How does Apple have the money to pursue new markets?
Quote:
In contrast, Microsoft makes only the software, so their entire development costs and profits have to come from that software sale.
Net result of this is, the Microsoft software is more expensive than the Apple software.
If Apple uses its hardware profits to develop future versions of Mac OS X, how does it manage to design and build those gawd awful unibody MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros? How does Apple get Nehalems a month before anyone else? How does Apple have the money to pursue new markets?
nonsequitur
It uses the rest of it's large profits to persue new markets... I'm not suggesting they use ALL of it to develope OSX, only some of it! Afterall, if these used all of their profits to development OSX, that'd be one hell of a budget!
The more MS portrays Apple as the premium brand, the more interesting and desirable it becomes. Conversely, all this advertising MS is doing actually makes them look like the bargain-basement brandyou don't choose, but have to settle for. Which would be true, anyway.
Quadra.... you're totally on the mark IMO.
MS is just hastening their demise. Let them just keep rowing their boat right off the water fall. Apple has seen growth in their market share because of on simple fact.... they build a better quality OS and machine. One thing I try to pass on to any PC friends considering a Mac is that I get a much longer life out of my machines. On average about 5 or 6 years while it seems I hear about them buying new machines every two or three years because something finally broke beyond the point of being able to fix it. Another poster in here also talks about resale value..... and he/she couldn't be more spot on. Just take a look at CL and you'll see.....
Comments
No antivirus software is comprehensive.
Apple earns zero profit on hardware when one buys a Mac OS X upgrade.
In my many years of extensively using Windows (NT... 2000... XP), to my knowledge I was never hit with a virus, but I am ecstatic not to be dealing with the issue since largely abandoning Windows in 2006. The disaster that is Vista makes me even happier.
But here I am again wasting time on other people's viruses.
If AVG isn't consuming any resources, then it isn't doing anything.
No antivirus software is comprehensive.
Where is Apple's profit on hardware when one buys a Mac OS X upgrade?
It only needs the resources when it needs to do something
I'd hazard a guess that the majority of OSX sales come attached to Apple hardware. The only reason you'd be buying further copies of OSX is to install it on your Apple hardware, which once again you've already paid Apple for. Just think of it like the iPod Touch, where you've paid out a lot of begin with, but then get heavily subsidised OS updates (with a small fee attached) along the life of the product. Microsoft doesn't have that sort of closed eco-system, so the cost of its products are higher, but the hardware in which its products can run on is much cheaper.
Good news for you then, because definition updates require no interaction and very minimal resources, and active sheild means you don't need to actually run scans. So count that reason out
I used AVG free for years on my Windows machines, and about 6 months ago I switched to Avira free since it uses a lot less resources. It still uses resources, though. Especially during system startup and definition updates. They're automated, yes, but they still use resources and the effect on the system is notable. To suggest that anti-virus programs use minimal resources is inaccurate.
Active shield is not fool-proof. If it were, anti-virus programs wouldn't even have a "scan system" feature. On my Windows machines I run a scan at least once every couple of weeks.
In addition, I also run Windows Defender, which is completely automated, but again, that's one more application using resources to protect your machine against malicious software.
I also run the disk cleanup and defrag utilities once every couple weeks.
This constant maintenance has become second nature to me, but the time adds up. For all its attempts to be a better OS, Windows still requires a lot of attention on the part of the end user to keep running smoothly and do what you need it to do.
Plugging in a USB flash drive for the first time and waiting for 30 seconds while Windows informs you through various annoying pop-ups that it has recognized, is installing, and has installed your USB drive is more than just a mere nuisance to some people.
Some would rather plug in the drive, have an icon appear on the desktop almost instantaneously and GO!
All these little things add up and contribute to the entire OS experience. Macs are a very worthwhile alternative for many people who don't want to have to worry about all those little "nuisances".
It only needs the resources when it needs to do something
Then I guess you're sure it's doing something [useful] because it is after all consuming resources.
I'd hazard a guess that the majority of OSX sales come attached to Apple hardware.
Oh, sorry, you are wrong. There is no attachment. Every Mac comes with the latest version of Mac OS X Ultimate. When it is purchased--if it is purchased--a Mac OS X upgrade comes later--perhaps 18 months or more later since that's roughly the product cycle for new versions from Apple.
A tier 1 hardware manufacturer like Apple can not afford to subsidize multiple generations of OS updates. How many hardware manufactures give away OS updates? Even M$ struggles with giving OS downgrades.
I used AVG free for years on my Windows machines, and about 6 months ago I switched to Avira free since it uses a lot less resources. It still uses resources, though. Especially during system startup and definition updates. They're automated, yes, but they still use resources and the effect on the system is notable. To suggest that anti-virus programs use minimal resources is inaccurate.
Active shield is not fool-proof. If it were, anti-virus programs wouldn't even have a "scan system" feature. On my Windows machines I run a scan at least once every couple of weeks.
In addition, I also run Windows Defender, which is completely automated, but again, that's one more application using resources to protect your machine against malicious software.
I also run the disk cleanup and defrag utilities once every couple weeks.
This constant maintenance has become second nature to me, but the time adds up. For all its attempts to be a better OS, Windows still requires a lot of attention on the part of the end user to keep running smoothly and do what you need it to do.
Plugging in a USB flash drive for the first time and waiting for 30 seconds while Windows informs you through various annoying pop-ups that it has recognized, is installing, and has installed your USB drive is more than just a mere nuisance to some people.
Some would rather plug in the drive, have an icon appear on the desktop almost instantaneously and GO!
All these little things add up and contribute to the entire OS experience. Macs are a very worthwhile alternative for many people who don't want to have to worry about all those little "nuisances".
I can see where you're coming from, but it does these things once, and never again. How is that so damned terrible and impossible to live with that you need to spend hundreds more for an Apple computer? Are there seriously people out there who have such an irritable personality that they can't stand 20 seconds of a USB device installing? Wow, is all I can say if there are.
Then I guess you're sure it's doing something [useful] because it is after all consuming resources.
Oh, sorry, you are wrong. There is no attachment. Every Mac comes with the latest version of Mac OS X Ultimate. When it is purchased--if it is purchased--a Mac OS X upgrade comes later--perhaps 18 months or more later since that's roughly the product cycle for new versions from Apple.
A tier 1 hardware manufacturer like Apple can not afford to subsidize multiple generations of OS updates. How many hardware manufactures give away OS updates? Even M$ struggles with giving OS downgrades.
I don't quite follow you. The cost of OSX is factored into the hardware sale. The hardware sale nets Apple a massive return, which they can subsequently use to subsidise the cost of future OS updates, just like they do with the iPod Touch. So effectively, you pay up front for the future OS revisions, which are then cheaper when they become available. In contrast, in the world of the PC, you don't pay up front for OS versions, but pay for them at full price if you do want them, when they become available.
I can see where you're coming from, but it does these things once, and never again. How is that so damned terrible and impossible to live with that you need to spend hundreds more for an Apple computer? Are there seriously people out there who have such an irritable personality that they can't stand 20 seconds of a USB device installing? Wow, is all I can say if there are.
Well to me, the USB thing wouldn't be such a bother. Like I said, I personally own machines running Windows. It obviously depends on the individual and what he/she wants. If you're using a machine mostly for entertainment (surfing the net, gaming, youtube, IRC, video streaming, IM, Facebook, etc.) then no, you're probably not going to care that your only USB flash drive takes 20+ seconds to be installed the first time you plug it in.
However, say you're using your computer to conduct scientific research, and your samples of whatever it is you're studying are on 50 separate USB drives of various makes that have been submitted by people involved in the study. You're looking at up to 25 minutes of your time just installing the things. Is the 25 minutes worth it? To some people it may not matter. To others, that 25 minutes is time that could be spent on something more productive. Granted, this is a far-fetched example.
But I'm just trying to point out that it is not for me or you to decide what someone else should consider worth their time and investment. It is up to the individual. I'm sure there are many people out there who have bought Macs and decided it was a terrible investment for them. There are also many people out there who have bought Macs and wished they had bought one sooner.
Well to me, the USB thing wouldn't be such a bother. Like I said, I personally own machines running Windows. It obviously depends on the individual and what he/she wants. If you're using a machine mostly for entertainment (surfing the net, gaming, youtube, IRC, video streaming, IM, Facebook, etc.) then no, you're probably not going to care that your only USB flash drive takes 20+ seconds to be installed the first time you plug it in.
However, say you're using your computer to conduct scientific research, and your samples of whatever it is you're studying are on 50 separate USB drives of various makes that have been submitted by people involved in the study. You're looking at up to 25 minutes of your time just installing the things. Is the 25 minutes worth it? To some people it may not matter. To others, that 25 minutes is time that could be spent on something more productive. Granted, this is a far-fetched example.
But I'm just trying to point out that it is not for me or you to decide what someone else should consider worth their time and investment. It is up to the individual. I'm sure there are many people out there who have bought Macs and decided it was a terrible investment for them. There are also many people out there who have bought Macs and wished they had bought one sooner.
Yeah I agree entirely. The problem is that these nuiances are being over-egged to the absolute extremes by people around here. For instance, spending hours each month installing and configuring anti-virus? That is simply absolute rubbish, since the whole thing is about 5 minutes tops, once, the first time you install it. Then people are moaning about the cost of Windows, whilst conveniently forgetting that they paid considerably more for their Mac to begin with. There's a fine line between being a fan, and being a fanboy, but a lot of people around here have not only crossed that, but done so running at full speed. I am absolutely a fan of where Apple is going with the iPhone, but I am not so blinkered to see that there is much improvement to be made.
The cost of OSX is factored into the hardware sale. The hardware sale nets Apple a massive return,
Just like premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer: not enough to sustain OS development.
which they can subsequently use to subsidise the cost of future OS updates, just like they do with the iPod Touch.
That's where you've run astray.
Just like premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer: not enough to sustain OS development.
That's where you've run astray.
So you have every confidence that if Apple ever allowed OSX to run on any hardware from any manufacturer, the price would remain the same? I'm more inclined to think that if that were the case, the cost of the software would go up to cover the loss of hardware revenue and extra support required.
So you have every confidence that if Apple ever allowed OSX to run on any hardware from any manufacturer, the price would remain the same? I'm more inclined to think that if that were the case, the cost of the software would go up to cover the loss of hardware revenue and extra support required.
You are the one claiming the net profit Apple makes on its hardware is sufficient to pay for the continued development and support of future Mac OS X versions (while still keeping investors happy). I just don't see that, b/c Apple's hardware prices are not out of line with premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer and b/c of what M$ charges for primary licenses and upgrades despite having 10X the market share of Apple.
Disclaimer: I am not invested in AAPL or MSFT.
You are the one claiming the net profit Apple makes on its hardware is sufficient to pay for the continued development and support of future Mac OS X versions (while still keeping investors happy). I just don't see that, b/c Apple's hardware prices are not out of line with premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer and b/c of what M$ charges for primary licenses and upgrades despite having 10X the market share of Apple.
Disclaimer: I am not invested in AAPL or MSFT.
But it's very well known that Apple's profit margins are very high, so it's not at all obsurd to think some of that goes to the continued developement of OSX, which as a result means they can sell it for less. In comparison, Microsoft makes absolutely nothing from the sale of hardware, so its entire profit and development costs have to come from the sale of the software. So really, it's a no brainer that a copy of Windows is going to be £100 more expensive than a copy of OSX. However, you probably paid over £100 less for your non-Apple computer in the first place.
I think your logic is a little bit twisted there. So you're saying that if it came on a $3000 computer, it would suddenly be a good product even though nothing had changed about it? I've used it for many years prior to switching to Avast, and it's been fine. It's amazing how many people think that because a product is free it is automatically rubbish, and that the paid for product is obviously much better.
Doesn't matter, I've done something like 2,500 virus removals on systems in the shop I work at over the last 3 years, I'm still finding multiple infections on systems running AVG. People bring in the computer because they say it runs slow. I remove the viruses with ESET NOD 32, runs better but slow, remove AVG and installed NOD 32, there was night and day difference, and this happens EVERY TIME i've done it.
But AVG will run faster on a more expensive PC because it likely won't have a 1.3 GHz Celeron Processor with 512 MB RAM.
Doesn't matter, I've done something like 2,500 virus removals on systems in the shop I work at over the last 3 years, I'm still finding multiple infections on systems running AVG. People bring in the computer because they say it runs slow. I remove the viruses with ESET NOD 32, runs better but slow, remove AVG and installed NOD 32, there was night and day difference, and this happens EVERY TIME i've done it.
But AVG will run faster on a more expensive PC because it likely won't have a 1.3 GHz Celeron Processor with 512 MB RAM.
That's the main reason I switched from AVG because it's got a bit bloated. Avast is quick and slim.
That's the main reason I switched from AVG because it's got a bit bloated. Avast is quick and slim.
I guess it's better than nothing.... I can say much of the same about Avast as well.
But it's very well known that Apple's profit margins are very high, so it's not at all obsurd to think some of that goes to the continued developement of OSX, which as a result means they can sell it for less.
You say Apple's profits are so much higher, but you've not shown this to be supernormal compared to other premium hardware manufacturers nor shown how Apple's profit margin from a 4% world-wide market share is high enough to support future Mac OS X development and support while leaving enough to satisfy investors.
In comparison, Microsoft makes absolutely nothing from the sale of hardware, so its entire profit and development costs have to come from the sale of the software.
Right, you think M$ puts so much effort into its Genuine Advantage Program because it gives Windows away to hardware OEMs?
So really, it's a no brainer that a copy of Windows is going to be £100 more expensive than a copy of OSX. However, you probably paid over £100 less for your non-Apple computer in the first place.
huh?
You say Apple's profits are so much higher, but you've not shown this to be supernormal compared to other premium hardware manufacturers nor shown how Apple's profit margin from a 4% world-wide market share is high enough to support future Mac OS X development and support while leaving enough to satisfy investors.
Right, you think M$ puts so much effort into its Genuine Advantage Program because it gives Windows away to hardware OEMs?
huh?
Sorry, but I really don't know how much simpler I can make it for you to understand. Let's see if you can understand this...
Apple makes hardware and software. The 2 are interlinked. Therefore, it wouldn't be outrageous to suggest that they money they make selling the hardware is used to develope the software.
In contrast, Microsoft makes only the software, so their entire development costs and profits have to come from that software sale.
Net result of this is, the Microsoft software is more expensive than the Apple software.
Apple makes hardware and software. The 2 are interlinked. Therefore, it wouldn't be outrageous to suggest that they money they make selling the hardware is used to develope the software.
If Apple uses its hardware profits to develop future versions of Mac OS X, how does it manage to design and build those gawd awful unibody MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros? How does Apple get Nehalems a month before anyone else? How does Apple have the money to pursue new markets?
In contrast, Microsoft makes only the software, so their entire development costs and profits have to come from that software sale.
Net result of this is, the Microsoft software is more expensive than the Apple software.
nonsequitur
If Apple uses its hardware profits to develop future versions of Mac OS X, how does it manage to design and build those gawd awful unibody MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros? How does Apple get Nehalems a month before anyone else? How does Apple have the money to pursue new markets?
nonsequitur
It uses the rest of it's large profits to persue new markets... I'm not suggesting they use ALL of it to develope OSX, only some of it! Afterall, if these used all of their profits to development OSX, that'd be one hell of a budget!
Let 'em.
The more MS portrays Apple as the premium brand, the more interesting and desirable it becomes. Conversely, all this advertising MS is doing actually makes them look like the bargain-basement brandyou don't choose, but have to settle for. Which would be true, anyway.
Quadra.... you're totally on the mark IMO.
MS is just hastening their demise. Let them just keep rowing their boat right off the water fall. Apple has seen growth in their market share because of on simple fact.... they build a better quality OS and machine. One thing I try to pass on to any PC friends considering a Mac is that I get a much longer life out of my machines. On average about 5 or 6 years while it seems I hear about them buying new machines every two or three years because something finally broke beyond the point of being able to fix it. Another poster in here also talks about resale value..... and he/she couldn't be more spot on. Just take a look at CL and you'll see.....
Anyway... loved your comments,
Z