Sticker Shock
I recently read an extremely biased article, and I'm amazed on many levels. For one, I haven't read an article for the Windows operating system that was that biased in a long time. Secondly, the writer is blatantly guilty of what he accuses others of doing, for example: "Apple’s $29 pricing decision is a clever one. They’re counting on gullible reporters and analysts to make oversimplified comparisons with Windows 7."
It's wrong on a couple of levels: 1. he compares a multi-capable operating system (Mac OS X Leopard), which there's only 1 version of, with a low-end version of Windows that people will eventually upgrade from (whether it's via purchase or pirating), and 2. he uses the PowerPC as an argument but disregards what a Windows user who purchased a computer prior to Vista would have to go through.
Without further ado, I give you my reply (links are at the bottom of the page):
"Using the math you laid out in your article for my scenario:
Leopard to Snow Leopard (Tiger came with my Mac):
$129 + $29 = $158
XP Pro (XP Home sucks) + Vista Ultimate (Upgrade) + Windows 7
Ultimate (Upgrade):
$129 + $329 + $220 = $778
$778 - $158 = $620 savings on a Mac
Even with the Snow Leopard family pack ($49 to upgrade 5 Intel Macs) my upgrade path would still be cheaper. This article is no different from what a Mac fanboi would write up for the Mac side. Other variables include, and not discussed in this article, people not being happy with XP/Vista Home and upgrading (by purchase or pirating) to XP Pro/Vista Ultimate. As much as I detest all the Jobs/Apple fellatio that goes on online, Apple's pricing is crushing Microsoft.
Let's not stop there ... $0 for Linux Mint and I can run that on a regular PC and a Mac, and it too is a superb operating system.
IRT the PowerPC argument, when Apple transitioned to Intel PC manufacturers were transitioning to Core Duos from the P4, and the standard RAM amount was 512MB. Sure, PowerPC users are left in the dark. Because of Vista's requirements, PC users would either have to upgrade their processor and RAM, or buy a whole new computer so Vista could run adequately. So, either they are left in the dark too, or the cost of their PC just increased.
It helps both sides of an argument to not be biased."
Comments
It's not even really the OS per se-- it is the desktop environment.
Since all versions of Mac OS have been built on the Darwin BSD kernel from version 10 on, the main distinction of Macs have been a proprietary desktop environment, proprietary software, and a few pieces of proprietary hardware. Strictly speaking, the humorous comparison of a Mac to a Mercedes Benz rings very true-- its elegant performance relies very much on specialized parts. Some people do not wish to pay the extra cost of such particular parts, and that's fine.
Either way, the relations between Linux users and Mac users is a lot better than Windows users and Linux users; quite a few Mac users run Linux part-time. I have met Mac users that quite enjoy open source, and I have met others that claim Apple's proprietary offerings are more intuitive (shame how the "user-friendly" buzzword seems to have been ditched during Job's short leave to NexTel).
they work differently and are addressed to different people
I would point out that this should be applied to Linux very, VERY broadly, because different distributions have been specialized numerous times. Play nice with Windows and Mac, easy to use? Ubuntu/Debian/Linux Mint, openSUSE. Absolutely no proprietary stuff? Mephis, among others.
My first computer was an Apple //e back in the early '80s, so I can see that Apple generally focuses strongly on user-friendly interfaces, with their most recent success in the iPod and iPhone. Microsoft and IBM had an early relationship with OS/2, so I guess Windows has been slightly more on the business end of things.