So it went live and it got read a few times. About a million times in two days to be exact, the Mac article has already gone down as one of the most popular articles in AT history. I got a lot of people telling me I was Mac-biased, a lot of people telling me I was PC-biased, but I got far more people telling me they liked the article, so I came away pleased.
The top three arguments I got against what I wrote were:
1) My price arguments were wrong.
2) You don't need more than two buttons on a mouse.
3) You didn't mention ________ (fill in the blank with Unix, security, iLife, etc...)
To which I respond:
1) No they're not.
2) Yes you do.
3) I know.
:)
Ok, now to be a little more serious. The price thing I still believe firmly on; while you can spec out a Dell system to easily hit $3000, take a look at our Buyer's Guides and see what type of a system you can get for just $1500. Granted you don't get warranty, an extremely quiet case, etc... but let's be honest, price matters, it matters a lot - that's why there are tons of sub-$1000 PCs out there. Lots of die-hard PC users already think Dell's prices are too high, they aren't going to embrace Apple's. But honestly this doesn't matter as much, as the article wasn't very cost-centric to begin with, I just reiterated an age-old argument which some agree with, some disagree with and others could care less about.
The mouse issue may just be a personal one and I'll leave it at that; most of the article was personal opinion so there's not much more to be said there.
Now the final point is an interesting one, because after all of the emails I got asking why I didn't touch on any number of aspects of OS X I found myself wanting to write a follow-up to the 11,000 word article. I honestly don't have the time to tackle that right now but it's something I may contemplate doing in the future, or maybe I'll just save it for a review of the next iteration of OS X due out next year.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed but it looks like NVIDIA may just come through with a 6800 Ultra DDL for my upcoming Mac GPU roundup. They're saying about a week, we'll see what happens there. I'm still planning a trip to visit ATI's Mac team, but I've yet to hammer out a date as to when, so I'll keep you posted on that as well.
Right now most that's on my plate is PC related, but I'll definitely post anything Mac related as soon as I get word.
I'm still using the G5 by the way, this was posted from it and that article was written on it.
The top three arguments I got against what I wrote were:
1) My price arguments were wrong.
2) You don't need more than two buttons on a mouse.
3) You didn't mention ________ (fill in the blank with Unix, security, iLife, etc...)
To which I respond:
1) No they're not.
2) Yes you do.
3) I know.
:)
Ok, now to be a little more serious. The price thing I still believe firmly on; while you can spec out a Dell system to easily hit $3000, take a look at our Buyer's Guides and see what type of a system you can get for just $1500. Granted you don't get warranty, an extremely quiet case, etc... but let's be honest, price matters, it matters a lot - that's why there are tons of sub-$1000 PCs out there. Lots of die-hard PC users already think Dell's prices are too high, they aren't going to embrace Apple's. But honestly this doesn't matter as much, as the article wasn't very cost-centric to begin with, I just reiterated an age-old argument which some agree with, some disagree with and others could care less about.
The mouse issue may just be a personal one and I'll leave it at that; most of the article was personal opinion so there's not much more to be said there.
Now the final point is an interesting one, because after all of the emails I got asking why I didn't touch on any number of aspects of OS X I found myself wanting to write a follow-up to the 11,000 word article. I honestly don't have the time to tackle that right now but it's something I may contemplate doing in the future, or maybe I'll just save it for a review of the next iteration of OS X due out next year.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed but it looks like NVIDIA may just come through with a 6800 Ultra DDL for my upcoming Mac GPU roundup. They're saying about a week, we'll see what happens there. I'm still planning a trip to visit ATI's Mac team, but I've yet to hammer out a date as to when, so I'll keep you posted on that as well.
Right now most that's on my plate is PC related, but I'll definitely post anything Mac related as soon as I get word.
I'm still using the G5 by the way, this was posted from it and that article was written on it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
53 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous - Monday, November 29, 2004 - link
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.Heck, you could have bought a BMW for what you paid for that damn thing. HA HA.
Sam - Friday, November 19, 2004 - link
Anand.. GREAT ARTICLE. I am a recent "switcher" though I still have my trusty Dull lapdog with XP Pro (1.7 P-M) for on the road business apps...I got the new Dual 2.5 G5 (liquid cooled!).. with the Nvidia 6800 Ultra, a 30" Apple Screen and a 23".. along with 8GB RAM and 2 10000RPM Raptors in a software raid.. and I'm in freaking heaven. Maya Unlimited just smokes on this thing!
Oh yes... it's damn expensive and I don't care. I love it. It's a BMW and my PC is a Chevy!
Anonymous - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link
I'm sorry I just can't. I just can't understand why after all this time of ripping off the mouse from Xerox that Apple can't put another damn button on their mouse.Call it context menu envy.
melgross - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link
I don't see what the problem is with the issue of the number of buttons on a mouse.OS X recognizes a three button mouse (or trackball) with scroll wheel, out of the box. No drivers needed.
While I too disagree with Apple giving only a one button mouse, look at the aftermarket out there.
You can't say that most of those mice and trackballs are being sold to one button Mac users. If a major excuse for not liking the Mac is that mouse, buy another one for $10.
I use a Microsoft Trackball Optical with four buttons and a wheel. So what's the problem?
I'll bet that a number of guys who mention the one button mouse are themselves using aftermarket units.
There's a reason why there are so many manufactures, both large and small, out there.
Even Microsoft realizes that people aren't happy with the standard mouse.
So if I'm a PC user and unhappy, or a Mac user and unhappy, I have a place to go. What's the difference?
Surely you can't think that a $10 mouse should decide which platform you use?
I know that some of you have other issues, but get this one out of the way. It's really not important.
Anonymous - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link
Me too. I can get more for my buck building a gaming rig than buying an out of the box Mac for the same purpose. Also, I can get the games faster on the PC.I'm hoping that the next Xbox is pretty killer because spending $$$ on a PC to use as a gaming rig is a pretty expensive toy. I've fallen WAY behind. I'm still using an old Radeon 8500 and it is really showing it's age.
eastvillager - Saturday, October 23, 2004 - link
the day most computer games come out on mac before they do on pc, I'll switch to mac as my main rig.While just about anything else I do with a computer, I'd rather do with a mac than a pc, I only spend about 5% of my time doing those things, while the other 95% of it is gaming.
Ultimately, for my uses, mac and pc are apples and oranges. I need an orange far more than an apple...
Anonymous - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
>>>>>For a computer that costs 1500 dollars more than another computer, but crashes less than 1/15th as often, the choice is VERY clear: Go with the more expensive computer. From my (limited) experience with compiling in both a Mac and PC environment (Win2k, not WinXP), the Mac seems to be more stable.Cost does not dictate the security or stability of a computer or a paritcular platform. If that stability comes from a hardware perspective than perhaps that argument is valid. However, to say that a Mac is more money because it "crashes" less doesn't compute.
You mention your "limited" experience in compiling in both Mac and PC environments. I program using the dreaded .NET framework and never have any problems with my computer choking or crashing during a compile. Perhaps you've got some real funky source code there. Let alone is an hour wasted for a reboot or network authentication, etc.
>>>>>>I am able to run more applications on the Mac than on the PC without the risk of crashing out something critical. That initial cost isn't necessarily "more expensive".
I think you're speaking more from personal experience and comfort with a particular platform. There are many factors involved with a crash not just the OS. What if you're playing a game on the Mac and a bug in the driver causes a reboot at a specific point in the game. Is that a problem with the OS? In fact, I give a lot of props to XP for their crash analysis which can very often lead you to a great description of the problem and a resolution.
Your argument about the increased costs of running a Windows network as opposed to a Mac network don't stack up. Firstly, that would require everyone in the organization be acclimated with the Mac which wouldn't be likely in most situations.
Secondly any admin tests updates/patches on a few computers before a rollout. That's just commen sense. I'd do that on a Mac or PC because you're dealing with the potential of effecting multiple users running different machines and configurations.
BLAH!
urk - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
Price issue: Depends on what you need. For a software developer, running compilations on a machine, that stability is absolutely critical. If, in the process of compiling something, my machine crashes, it takes me about an hour to figure out where I was in the compile, reboot the machine, re-log back in, blah blah blah, re-synch back up with other servers etc. If every hour of my time costs the company 100 dollars (includes overhead rates for letting me stay in this building, paying for my managers all the way up to CEO etc), then every time my computer crashes, the company wastes 100 dollars. For a computer that costs 1500 dollars more than another computer, but crashes less than 1/15th as often, the choice is VERY clear: Go with the more expensive computer. From my (limited) experience with compiling in both a Mac and PC environment (Win2k, not WinXP), the Mac seems to be more stable. I am able to run more applications on the Mac than on the PC without the risk of crashing out something critical. That initial cost isn't necessarily "more expensive".Couple that with the administration costs for a PC centric work environment with a Mac centric work environment, and the lines favor more closely the Mac (experience has taught me this - We've usually need around 1 Mac Admin for every 150 users, vs. about 3 PC admins for the same number). Viruses and Malware just complicate matters atrociously (granted, most of those arguments can be made because PC's have such a disproportionate number of users - more attractive to exploits). The constant Windows Updates (and more importantly, testing the Windows Updates with custom software running on the computers to verify it won't adversely affect anything before you do a massive deployment) can also be an irritation.
So the cost issue boils down to (as always) What do you want to do with the computer? For me at home, I'd rather spend the extra time tinkering with my 1500 dollar Dell than with my 3000 dollar Mac... But I also play games :)
Good article, Anand, by the way.
Anonymous - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
What I don't understand is why everyone makes it sound like like viruses/spyware/hack attacks are a Windows problem because of some integral flaw in the Windows operating system. While Windows obviously has security issues, the biggest reason for its vulnerability is that due to the 95% market share a similar proportion of virus writers/spammers/hackers target Windows. The malcreants who create security issues by writing viruses and spyware are out for a reason: either to make as much money as possible or to make as big a mess as possible, and the best way to do that is to target the 95% of the computers that use Windows.I'm sure a lot of the Mac fans out there would love to have a ton of people switch to their "superior" operating system/hardware but if Apple were to gain every 20-30% of the market share it would start getting hit just as hard with viruses and spyware and what have you.
ang - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
hi,i love the applications and look of macs, however, i can't afford to buy one right now. i was wondering if there's any software out there that i can purchase and run on my pc that has a similar attractive look and features of mac apps, like the iCalendar. i don't want to use the emulator thing. i'd be willing to buy software. anyone know? THANKS!!