OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Buy Windows: Its Cheap

Entry 982, on 2009-04-05 at 18:52:11 (Rating 3, Computers)

Microsoft seem to have had very limited success with advertising Windows by pretending its fast, reliable, pleasant to use, secure, or anything else useful. Now they seem to be taking a more credible direction: by saying its cheap! Yes, its cheap in every sense of the word. Well actually, Windows itself isn't very cheap (usually) but most Windows PCs seem to be.

When I said "every sense of the word" above this is what I meant. Here's the dictionary (New Oxford American) definition of the word "cheap"...
low in price [yes, I guess that's usually true, compared to a Mac]
charging low prices [OK, the same as above I guess]
(of prices or other charges) low [Yes, yes, the same again]
inexpensive because of inferior quality [ah, now we get to the truth]
(informal) miserly; stingy [agreed]
of little worth because achieved in a discreditable way requiring little effort [agreed]
deserving of contempt: a cheap trick [now that's the best one yet]

So Microsoft seem to be saying that Windows is low in price, inexpensive because its of inferior quality, miserly, stingy, of little worth because its achieved in a discreditable way requiring little effort, and deserving of contempt, and a cheap trick. I won't argue with that!

OK, I know that Microsoft didn't actually use the word "cheap" but that's what they are really saying and can anyone deny that Windows PCs are cheap? No, I don't think so. The thing about cheap stuff is that when you look at the big picture such as TCO (total cost of ownership) the cheap stuff isn't really cheap any more - at least not in the sense of inexpensive. In the sense of inferior, miserly, of little worth, and being worthy of contempt the idea of cheap lasts forever!

Comment 1 (1929) by SBFL on 2009-04-06 at 09:18:28: (view recent only)

Well cheap is good for the proletariat isn't it? I am sure you support more Windows Vista out there for the less than well off, OJB....

Comment 2 (1931) by OJB on 2009-04-06 at 09:32:02:

No, I support more Linux out there for the less well off. And used Macs. As I said, when you consider TCO the picture changes. Many Windows users waste a lot of money each year just keeping their Windows machines going, eliminating viruses, etc. Plus the Mac comes with a lot of bundled software and often extra hardware than cheaper PCs don't have. Many people don't look at the total cost of Windows.

Comment 3 (1933) by SBFL on 2009-04-06 at 09:50:12:

Hmmm, this TCO, let's see a case study.
As I know, Windows Update for security updates is free as long as you have an internet connection.
"Mac comes with a lot of bundled software"...? Sounds anti-competitive to me...

Comment 4 (1937) by OJB on 2009-04-06 at 11:56:17:

I can see I will need to find some studies of TCO. I'll get back to you on that in the next day or two.

Comment 5 (1956) by OJB on 2009-04-17 at 22:18:51:

From 2007 shows Mac prices are similar to a PC with the same capabilities here.
More recent also shows that the price is similar if you want the same features here
And there's this
Plenty more too.

Comment 6 (1968) by SBFL on 2009-04-19 at 10:46:23:

The first two seem relatively inconclusive (depends on the desired specs) and anyway price comparison alone is not TCO. The third link appears to do much better but it's actually a report piece on selected comments made by others, not an actual TCO per se. Also, I may be overly sceptical, but the author does little to hide her favourtism for Apple. The language just gives her away. She sounds like a kid at Christmas!

Comment 7 (1971) by OJB on 2009-04-19 at 11:31:56:

There seem to be few if any real studies done recently so I am relying on a lot of anecdotal information here. I realise that anecdotes can be unreliable but in sufficient numbers they do indicate a consensus. I know that the number of support calls for Macs is hugely less than those for PCs at the university I work at, for example.

Comment 8 (1976) by SBFL on 2009-04-20 at 04:13:46:

Fair enough. It was probably a tough ask but you just seem so sure of yourself, so I needed to ask for some hard evidence..!! (who am I sounding like now?)

Comment 9 (2021) by SBFL on 2009-05-23 at 09:17:23:

In Feb I sought out a new computer. A friend of mine, who has switched from PC to Mac as an enthusiast, encouraged me to buy a Mac as the benefits were there (believe me he was a long time Windows user but this switch will be no surprise to you). Well I did genuinely look and clearly the Apple is cost prohibitive to many. For me, it comes down to not what is best absolutely, but what delivers the most for the $ spent. I don't believe the Mac stacks up here. I ended up buying a low end Acer PC (€600) with Windows Vista Home Edition. It came with a 23" monitor. I think the Apple monitor cost that alone. With my lowly Acer I have everything I need. Internet (through supplier obviously), and all my favourite programs: Office 2003 (could not use on a Mac), Chrome, LimeWire (legitimately used of course), Apple iTunes, Acrobat reader, FTP program, DVD ripper (legitimately used of course), Skype and maybe a few other handy tools. So the Mac is better..? But what does it give to the mainstream user that a low end PC can't give? It seems to me that the Apple computer is only good for the hardcore nerds.

Comment 10 (2023) by OJB on 2009-05-23 at 12:26:41:

You bought a low end Acer PC with a 23" screen for 600 Euros? Isn't that about NZ$1400. I agree that you can't get a Mac for that, it would be around $1900 (that's with a non-Apple screen). It would be interesting to do a comparison of features (hardware and bundled software) but more importantly the Mac user gets to use the world's best OS, you get one that no one wants!

And Office 2004 (the Mac equivalent of 2003) and 2008 (equivalent of 2007) are both available for Mac - but of course I don't recommend them!

So what else do you get with a Mac? Piles of useful bundled software; a faster, more reliable, easier to use system, generally more features, freedom from viruses, piles of useful Mac and Unix free software. Plus you can run Windows and Linux at the same time as Mac OS if you want to.

Sure you pay a bit more but I think its really worth it!

Comment 11 (2028) by SBFL on 2009-05-24 at 20:10:50:

Well it depends on what the individual see's as useful. My days of playing around with computers are over, like I said I'm just a mainstream user now. And any improvement in speed - perceived or otherwise - would not be noticed. Re Office - I realise you can get it for Mac but (in my case) I would have to buy it again since my Office 2003 disc for Windows wouldn't install it's Apple equivalent on a Mac.

Comment 12 (2032) by OJB on 2009-05-24 at 22:22:21:

You seem to have the idea that Macs are more suitable for power users when, in some ways, the opposite is true. Macs require a lot less maintenance than PCs. People with no tech skills can usually do everything. That's not possible with a PC. On the other hand, geeks like myself enjoy the power of Unix which is "behind the scenes".

I accept the problem of the expense of replacing software. That is a genuine reason to stick with an existing system, but not a great long term strategy in my opinion.

Comment 13 (2037) by SBFL on 2009-05-28 at 07:24:21:

"You seem to have the idea that Macs are more suitable for power users when, in some ways, the opposite is true."
...so Windows-powered computers are better for power users?...;-)

Comment 14 (2053) by OJB on 2009-05-28 at 21:45:13:

No, Macs are suitable for users who don't want to spend half their life installing bug fixes, removing viruses, and generally tinkering with the system to keep it going. Of course, there is plenty of opportunity to do that on a Mac if you want to (we have the Unix command line - I love it) but you don't have to do that sort of thing if you don't want to.

Comment 15 (2061) by SBFL on 2009-06-04 at 07:57:10:

I knew what you meant. I think you missed the sarcastic tone of my previous comment.

I actually learnt a bit of AIX admin in my day. Good ol "$ ls". Long forgotten now.

Comment 16 (2072) by OJB on 2009-06-04 at 21:15:49:

Its amazing how long various forms of Unix have been useful for. How many other high tech products invented in the 60s are still in use today?

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.