Resolving the price issue

by Anand Lal Shimpi on 10/11/2004 8:55 PM EST
Comments Locked

100 Comments

Back to Article

  • Sid - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link

    Dear Anand,
    so what is the final word on imac/ibook/owerbook review. is anything happening or you are turned off from the flame war that erupted on this comments section?
  • Anonymous - Sunday, November 7, 2004 - link

    could we have some real benchmarks next time? gaming, scientific, graphics etc.
  • Lord Haw Haw - Sunday, November 7, 2004 - link

    Enter the Microsoft Office for Mac Sweepstakes & win a Voodoo doll !!!

    http://sweepstakesonline.com/macoffice/

    The prize is a "Professional" doll that's made to look like you... whoopee! What planet do these geeks live on! You can bet these guys are going to make the MSN online music store really cool. I can just imagine it:

    "Get a free My Little Pony with just 50 U2 song downloads. Take photos of it in different poses & the chip we've installed will upload them straight into your 'My Pictures' folder."

    My advice is set up XP next to the lavatory in case this kitsch causes you to feel the need to use the "My Little Barf Receptacle".
  • Coombs - Thursday, November 4, 2004 - link

    Anand,

    How come this Comments section degenerated into Mac vs PC vs Linux etc debate? I thought there was a separate forum for that at AnandTech.

    Anyho, what's your next move Anand? iMac G5, Powerbook G4 17" or the lowly iBookG4?

  • Morten - Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - link

    This has nothing to with macs and apples, but I'd like to see more of those inside the biz articles. Like the one you just posted about what's going on with Intel, AMD, ATi and nVidia. You know, info you got from visiting the motherboard manufacturers. It was most excellent :)
  • Anonymous - Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - link

    The Mac IS the safest computing environment.

    http://star-techcentral.com/tech/story.asp?file=/2...

    Long Live the MAC!
  • GhandiInstinct - Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - link

    ANAND, who you're voting for blog entry? Kinda important...?
  • Doc - Friday, October 29, 2004 - link

    #89 "Yes but the author of the vulnerability did not target all 10,000,000. The author wrote malicious code for an exploit that they knew very well."

    "The author of the vulnerablility" did not target anything - the author of the VIRUS did.

    #89 "This once again proves that a small user base was effected by a program exploit. This doesn't prove the Mac's superior security by resisting this so called 'threat'. "

    Correct. A small user base is no guarantee of security. Thus, the reason why the Mac remains virus free must be reconsidered - as it does NOT appear to be NECESSARILY due to small user base. One can still argue that it does not appear to appeal as a target - but not that simple small numbers make it invulnerable.

    For whatever reason the platform has had 10 years of virtually virus free computing.

    A simple analogy is Monaco - small, affluent & terrorist free.

    Oh, but it could be invaded easily so it isn't safe - they should move to Iran which managed to defeat Iraq despite repeated attacks by Sadam, part funded by rich USA.

    Try selling that idea to the residents of Monaco.

    It'd be like trying to sell a PC to a Mac user.
  • MCSE - Friday, October 29, 2004 - link

    #91 "I would love to have clients with a Macintosh Only system/network...my life would be easy..."

    Sure, listening to the crickets sing while waiting for the phone to ring to say they've had a problem... but you're bank manager won't be happy. Keep telling them they need Windows - there's always plenty of paid work to do.

    I read a month ago that Bern University in Switzerland has just two techs to manage 2300 Mac computers! (in German: http://www.apple.com/chde/education/articles/unibe... That's not not locked down Corporate clones netbooting to a limited set of trusted apps with NO INTERNET! That is 2300 Macs being mucked about by endless students running endless combinations of software. If that spread it would decimate the tech support industry.

    Compare that to the French survey Microsoft did of it's own OSes - one million locked down corporate computers:

    "Acadys and Microsoft, have installed in more than 1 million corporate PCs a software analyzing the way the computer is used. Some results are really interesting...and might change some legends...

    ...The average crash frequency requiring the system to reboot is around 8% ...per session!! This results varies a lot with Windows version. Indeed, with Windows 2000, it is around 4%, 3% with NT4 and...close to 12% with XP."

    (in French: http://solutions.journaldunet.com/0409/040915_etud...

    So lets face the ugly truth - that's locked down XP, running a limited set of trusted apps, net booting from a reliable image, in a Corporate work environment (no resetting the screen res to play Doom here), crashing in over 10% of sessions!! Microsoft's OWN figures!!! Yippee!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Seems like Microsoft are building up our reasons for wanting to switch the next latest & greatest "reliable Windows OS". Looks like they haven't actually lost their minds yet & decided to put out an OS that actually works & doesn't make you want to upgrade ASAP. Nope, they haven't put themselves out of business just yet; they're still in the good old business of hyping up patched & over patched buggy bloatware, like so much ropey old second-hand clothing. And that's GOOD news for all us MSCE Techs just leaving college. God bless Microsoft for thinking of us.
  • John Q Public - Friday, October 29, 2004 - link

    #89...

    I fully understand the argument of TCO...and the TCO of a Mac or Linux based comapny would be smaller...BUT...also to be considered...that's if you're buying all new toys...or just getting things started...

    ...90% of the corps I've worked/consulted for in the past several years have had one thing in common...how can we best improve things without burning the budget...or how can we stretch our current machines a little further...and not how do we make things better in five years...

    Management in most companies are very tight with the purse strings these days...and even though TCO on an all Macintosh system is significantly less than that of all Windows...the big hurdle is putting out the rather large amount of capital associated with a completely different platform...retraining employees to use different software (not just the OS...but applications)...buying new apps (productivity/support/etc)...

    bottom line...unless you're willing to put forth MAJOR GREEN in moving to a different platform and the possible downtime associated with it...you live with what you've got...fix what you can...patch what you cannot...I would love to have clients with a Macintosh Only system/network...my life would be easy...
  • Toto - Thursday, October 28, 2004 - link

    Lead you all the way...........Rosanna YEAH

    Lead you all the way...........ROSANNA!!!!!!!
  • IluvDoc - Thursday, October 28, 2004 - link

    #88 No, it proves that a virus can successfully target just 12,000 vulnerable computers... so 10,000,000 is clearly a big enough target.
    **********************************************

    Yes but the author of the vulnerability did not target all 10,000,000. The author wrote malicious code for an exploit that they knew very well. This once again proves that a small user base was effected by a program exploit. This doesn't prove the Mac's superior security by resisting this so called 'threat'.

    #88 So by giving undue emphasis to the word 'only' you've found a way to disagree and ignore the meaning of the post.
    **********************************************

    I am both a Mac and PC user. I just don't believe in standing by misguided truths by Mac fanboys who are solely familiar with the Mac platform and the Cupertino rhetoric. I never said Mac users are safe as long as they stay small. Nor did I say that was the *only* reason why they have it is. I just said it was a BIG one.

    #88 To paraphrase this faulty logic:
    Geneva cannot be marketed as a safer place to live than Bagdad until we first export Al Qaeda there.
    You are welcome to live in a war zone if you wish
    ***********************************************

    No, not quite. Though you can say crime is an element in both places. The degree and severity of crime might be different but there is still ultimately crime. Thus the blanket statements of saying "The Mac is a much superior OS when it comes to security" is for a lack of a better word...Poop. 'Opener' was not a major threat however, it does reveal that there are some criminals running around in "Geneva". I'm sure you'll be seeing a lot more of this activity soon enough. I guess a better way to put it would be, 'Can the Geneva Security services handle the Al Qaeda threat when it arrives'.

    #88 Assuming perfect patching, updating definitions & no surprises. According to Microsoft's own assessments XP SP2 adversely affected at least 210 applications:
    ***********************************************

    So are you telling me that the move from the Classic Mac OS to OS X didn't effect anyone? Even in 'Classic' mode? Are you telling me no applications experienced incompatibilities with each subsequent major Apple release: Jaguar, Panther (and definitely) Tiger?

    #88 So many people have chosen not to update. Thus, in real world situations it seems to me perfectly sensible to use a Mac as an email server. In fact, what has been suggested is that heterogeneous populations are more disease resistant than inbred monocultures. I would have thought that, by now, even the good folk of Montana have come to understand that. ;-)
    *************************************************

    I suppose you're under the impression that all Mac users are like you and constantly update their AV defs and system updates. Not quite. This is why windows flaws spread as fast as they do. A HUGE install base of very uneducated end users. Do you really think that is so different from the Mac user install base? The majority of users on both platforms are neophyte's with limited computer knowledge. If you don't take preventive measures you will receive a virus or be exposed to a threat. Plain and simple. If someone is firing bullets at you....get out of the way.

    A Mac email server? What for? I get more features using exchange and it integrates better with the MS Office apps that most of the world (even Mac users) use. Perhaps you're under the impression that A Mac email server approaches threats in emails differently than an Exchange Server. In fact many of the "cutting edge" features listed at:

    http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/mail_services.h...

    Were already in Exchange 5.5 and that came out years ago. Also, I don't see any information about tools or docs about importing Exchange information stores or email. What then would be the point to intregrate Macs for beter so called "security"? Obviously the TCO would be much greater with a ROI that I'd probably never see.

    Are heterogeneous populations really more disease free? I'm not talking about the 4 PC/Mac network you've got running at your house with a Mac 'email server'. I'm talking about enterprise computing. Desktops are predominately Windows based and might well be for the end of time (they're dirt cheap). Good or bad that's the way it is. Look at IBM and their Linux desktop roll out. Oh wait, it never happened. Wy? Because the problems associated with rolling out a new OS to the desktop and having users become familiar with it are BIG hurdles that hinder productivity. Unix and Linux servers have delegated duties in most enterprises (Apache, data, dev.) They are limited in scope to the hordes of Windows PCs on the desktop and their presence does not lessen the threat of all the bad stuff we've been talking about. It only increases it as you need staff with skills to accomodate these systems and to support them.

    I operate in an inbred monoculture and maybe me and my cousins just gots good genes cuz we ain't gots no two headed babies round here. Must be that G3 imac my lil' one gots in her room.
  • Doc - Thursday, October 28, 2004 - link

    #49 "Look at the target number. You posted a link in relation to a secuirty flaw of a specific product not the OS. So of course that vulnerability is only going to infect the install base running the program(s) not patched. All your post proves is that a program had a vulnerability and someone exploited it."

    No, it proves that a virus can successfully target just 12,000 vulnerable computers... so 10,000,000 is clearly a big enough target.


    #49 "No one said that the smaller Mac user base was the *only* reason it had so few viruses or vulnerabilities."

    So by giving undue emphasis to the word 'only' you've found a way to disagree and ignore the meaning of the post.


    #49 "My point was (and always has been) that the Mac cannot be touted as some superior, more secure platform to windows. The only way to test this would be to open up the flood gates and the amount of users and see how the OS responds to a myriad of threats."

    To paraphrase this faulty logic:

    Geneva cannot be marketed as a safer place to live than Bagdad until we first export Al Qaeda there.

    You are welcome to live in a war zone if you wish.


    #49 "...about the Mac being able to protect PCs from viruses. The Mac OS is doing nothing other than providing the platform OS that the AV program runs on. You're providing no higher level of security than a PC running AV software."

    Assuming perfect patching, updating definitions & no surprises. According to Microsoft's own assessments XP SP2 adversely affected at least 210 applications:

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884...

    So many people have chosen not to update. Thus, in real world situations it seems to me perfectly sensible to use a Mac as an email server. In fact, what has been suggested is that heterogeneous populations are more disease resistant than inbred monocultures. I would have thought that, by now, even the good folk of Montana have come to understand that. ;-)

    #49 "That's pretty clever. However, that pretty much sums up what a lot of Mac users think. They have the love of the Mac so engrained in their psyche that everything else computer related is bunk... ... PS. I love Macs and I want to marry one."

    Replace the 'Mac' with 'PC' and your own words neatly sum up the quality of the thinking behind your post.
  • Anonymous - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link

    #86

    Eh, I use Macs and PCs. They're computers to me, not a way of life. My life won't drastically change on one platform over the other. I could essentially do the same things on either one except I have more control from a hardware standpoint on a PC than I do a Mac. That meaning, if I build a PC I have a wider choice of Mobos, processors, and other 3rd party junk to ruin my life with.

    I used to be a Mac junkie. I'd go to all the trade shows and even worked security so I could be there all three days (MacFair LA). After a while I just got burnt on the whole supposed "superiority complex" thing many Mac users often have. As a previous poster in this thread said "A Mac is more than a computer". That about sums it up.

    #79

    As far as security goes even your average joe who has taken the Security + exam could tell you believing an OS is ultimately secure "just because" is bound to get you into trouble. Consider for a moment that BSD is open source so individuals have greater access to its source code. Some would say this is a pro, others would say it's a con. The fact is if someone wanted to write something nasty for the Mac OS it is totally possible.

    What makes Windows so flawed is not just the vulnerabilities but the millions of uneducated computer users who do not have virus protection, a firewall or regularly install updates. When you have scores of unprotected computers the chances of even a mediocore threat causing great concern is HUGE.

    Touting the superior Mac Security as a mantra is misguiding to layman computer users who might purchase the Mac thinking they don't have to take preventive measures to protect their assets. Though Opener did not have a HUGE impact on the Mac install base it will only take one nasty threat to reveal that Mac users aren't as well protected as they think. I'm not talking about you or anyone else in this forum who is obviously an educated computer user. The problem is the world's filled with a lot more of "them" than "us". Lets face it, its the kind of world where you have to practice safe surfing.
  • John Q Public - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link

    #85...

    nice try...but I had to go out and pay for my Dual G4 and 23" CinemaHD...and yes...my wallet hurt for a few days...the Gospel of Macintosh speaks more of "...I cast thee out into a world of unbelievers and nay sayers...forgive them their PC-Centric ways and enlighten them whenever you can...beat them over the head with an Apple Design KeyBoard when they won't listen..."

    #79...

    Agreed to a point...the "Security through Obscurity" does have some truth to it...but that does not make Macintosh any less safe than WindowsXP...but the things that make Macintosh a little safer thn WIndows is the basis in BSD...and several security features built in which Windows has only recently (and in some cases not) implemented...

    #82...

    you're right...Macintosh does not have a Backspace Key...only two Deletes...one forward...one backward...nor is out enter key next to the letters...that is the place for the Return Key...Enter is located on the Numeric portion...and unlike PCs...we have 16 Function keys...and ours are fully configurable globally or by application :)
  • Anonymous - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link

    There's nothing wrong with saying positive things about any platform you use. Windows, Mac, Linux, Unix, BSD, Commodore, whatever. The many flavors of OS reflect the many different tastes that are necesary to computing. Windows just capatalized on filling this void with cheap computers, and half baked operating systems. To Microsoft's credit, XP is a great improvement over their previous efforts.

    However, being a rabid diehard fan boy with no real basis for speaking supposed truths of a platform is just senseless. It is after all just a forum and it is after all just a computer.
    To many Mac & PC users though it's their baby and they beam with pride about the Mac and why they use it. It's great that a computer has filled this void in your life but after all it is only a computer.

    Perhaps you can spread more of this Mac Gospel love around and buy me a Dual G5 and big ass flat panel monitor. Doesn't the Mac Gospel speak of "if your brother asks you for your Mac give it to him and a flat panel".

    Long live the DOGCOW "MOOF, MOOF".
  • rico - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link

    "A lot of foaming of the mouth going on over there."

    Just like here when someone tries post something positive about a Mac.


  • Magneto - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link

    There's another thread going here by a bunch of angry Mac users about an article questioning OSX security.

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/index.php?p=676

    A lot of foaming of the mouth going on over there.
  • Anonymous - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link

    Dude you hit backspace? You should be using a Mac! Mac's don't have backspace!

    BTW, they haev a button on the keyboard that has an Apple icon too. Jealous?
  • Anonymous - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link

    THEAY = THE DAY.

    Sorry, I hit backspace. =/
  • HEEDTHEMACGOSPEL - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link

    Well if it's in PC World I better get prepared.

    ATTN: PC USERS, THEAY OF RECKONING IS UPON YOU! HEED THE WORDS FROM THIS MAC FREAK AND HIS MIGHTY PC WORLD ARTICLE.

    Funny how it's called PC World and all. I wonder if they have to sel magazines for a living. Hmmm. Hey, what ever happened to MacUser?
  • melgross - Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - link

    No OS is completely secure. But some are more secure than others.

    If you read around the web, and go to other sites such as eWeek, Computerworld, Infoworld, etc., you'll see that security experts agree that OS X, while not 100% secure, is more secure than XP.

    Not because of "security through obscurity", but because the platform is delivered inherently more secure. FreeBSD is one of the most secure platforms.

    In order to infect the Mac, the user generally must do something proactive, such as enter the Admin. password when requested. This is very different than XP, where once you sign with your password, it's a free-for-all.

    Also, PC worms and virus' can't propagate out from the Mac the way they do on the PC. They are dormant unless the user unwittingly mails them out. That's why Norton or Virex is so important.

    If you want to think about MS security, read this article. It will get you ready for the next wave. Of course, MS says that they will make certain it's secure. Sure.

    http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118045,0...
  • Anonymous - Monday, October 25, 2004 - link

    #77

    I don't really see the point in conducting this type of usability research for an article that is to encompass every OS for both Macs and PCs. Anand wrote his article from a PC users perspective using a Mac. I can't really see Anand wanting to chronicle the history of each platform through an OS comparison.

    Firstly, I doubt he's familiar with the older Mac OS variations (not like it's difficult) nor does he have the time (I would think) to locate the hardware to run them. Sure you can locate this stuff on ebay but why bother? Normally reviews are done because the hardware has been provided by a company in the first place. Though in the case of Anand's article he admits to buying the Mac equipment.

    Me personally, the idea seems a bit too nostalgic and the scope a bit too broad. I agree with #76 that a comparison between Mac OS 9 vs. Windows 9x and XP vs X would be a more interesting comparison and a bit more applicable if that. Mac OS 9 and Windows 9x are not even supported anymore by their respective companies. So while insightful the data extrapolated is worth little more than entertainment value.

    Then again, Anand can do whatever he wants. That's just my input.
  • Coombs - Saturday, October 23, 2004 - link

    #75 and 76 make some valid comments and suggestions.

    The earliest Mac Os I have used is 6. IMHO, Mac Os 6 is already a complete OS-what I call an Os done right. Except for added on features, there is not much difference in terms of usability between the various flavors. Once you have learnt how to use Os 6 you have all the muscle memory to use any of the other classic Mac Oses.

    Of course none of the modern programs will run on the earlier hardware or Oses. There are some really nice older programs for the earlier Macs that are fun to use and work better than the more recent bloatware. If anyone has used MacDraw or CricketGraph, you will realize that no modern program reaches the Zen-like perfection of those earlier programs.

    Cheers and thanks to #75 and #76 for seconding my suggestion.

    I am willing to donate my LC 475 (with Os 7.1) for this purpose if Anand can pay for the shipping. I was going to donate it to my son's school.
  • John Q Public - Friday, October 22, 2004 - link

    #75...

    ...although #74's question is interesting...and not particularly expensive to try...you can find older Pre-G3 PowerMacs on eBay for next to nothing...but for ease of testing and fewer headaches...I'd only test 7.5.5 and up...most things prior to 7.5.5 were akin to Windows 3.0...it was there...it was sorta usable...and it was stable (when it wanted to be...Windows 9x and up call it a BSOD...on Macintosh...it's a System Bomb...not a pretty sight)...

    ...and one other thing to thnk about on the testing...there is VERY LITTLE modern software that will run on anything less than OS 8.6...and seeing in Mac circles...OS 8.6 was little more than a Beta for OS 9...may as well just test OS 9 vs OS X vs Win98 vs WinXP...but again...you're comparing...well...Apples to Lemons...
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 22, 2004 - link

    Sounds like a good idea but a bit TOO extensive. Considering he would have to locate additional hardware needed to run the old Mac OSes as well as the software THEN evaluate and write the article for all that you mentioned. We probably wouldn't hear from Anand for a couple of months.

    I don't know if Mrs. Anand would like that.
  • Coombs - Friday, October 22, 2004 - link

    Anand,

    How about a comparison of the usability of different incarnations of Mac Os and Windows- a trip down the memory lane, so to speak?

    I would like to suggest Mac Os 6.0, 7.0, 9.0 & Os X and Windows 3.1, 95, NT/2000 & XP. May be throw in the Next Os too. Comments on features appeared that first in the different Oses etc and if all these changes to the Os in anyway changed the computing experience significantly.


    We already know that the iMac G5 is going to be slower than your dual G5 but Mac Os 6 on an ancient Mac may run faster!

    Cheers

  • John Q Public - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link

    >>Just as there is always a family member who wants me to fix their computer: Mac and PC alike.

    I know that feeling...all too well...I'm getting ready to relocate in the next year...and nobody will know I know anything about computers...the town I'm gonna be living in is a little tiny farming community...and I'll be making a 30-45 minute commute to wherever I'll be working (in the city)...only a few family members there...and none of them own a 'puter...or want one :)
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link

    >>>>...that's the biggest reson I left IT...I began hating everything around me...compters...people...anything that caused annoyance...and one of the reasons I "Switched" to Macintosh

    I'm just on the computer way too much. I don't think "swtiching" to the Mac will help me (personally). My Daughter has an iMac as do many of my family members so there is always a Mac around somwhere. Just as there is always a family member who wants me to fix their computer: Mac and PC alike.

    I think I'll change professions and go into shoe repair. You never see enough shoe repairmen.
  • John Q Public - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    #69...

    >>I even got rid of my home computer just because I'm on the computer so much as it is.

    ...that's the biggest reson I left IT...I began hating everything around me...compters...people...anything that caused annoyance...and one of the reasons I "Switched" to Macintosh...I still code of the side...and will probably put up a couple shareware apps after I learn Objective-C...but that's gonna be ONLY for personal diversion and a little extra spending money (maybe enough to get my 17" PowerBooK???)...
  • Anonymous - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    Some mainframes ARE hackable.

    Live it, love it, learn it!
  • Noah Body - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    #67

    Thanks for clarifying the problems with your server. It is good to see that Windows was not the only problem preventing decent uptime.

    I started out as a Mac user and like many Mac users I was extremely biased with the PC. I hated PCs and could not understand why anyone would use them. It was pretty ignorant of me to dislike something I've never used before. It all seemed so foreign to me this world of command prompts, .dll files and registry issues and I did not want a part of it. Of course I had to get familiar with it considering the line of work I was getting into.

    It really comes down to what you're accustomed to and feel comfortable using. I feel at home on both platforms but to me they are all just "computers" though, that might be contrary to your point of view. I even got rid of my home computer just because I'm on the computer so much as it is.


  • wbwither - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    #66 Well, I wasn't trying to allege Apple of price-fixing so much as I was calling them smart in their pricing. I don't think there's anything wrong with what they're doing. If anything, they're price-fixing in favor of the consumer. I realize that Apple can't have the economies of scale that come with using Intel/AMD CPU's and more-or-less generic motherboards. I'm also one of those people who doesn't think that Macs are ridiculously overpriced, and I agree that they're becoming more and more competitive. If I had the money, I'd buy a new 2.5 G5 in a heartbeat.

    I've got quite a bit of experience with the upgradability of Macs myself... I've owned a Quadra with a PPC/66MHz upgrade card, a PM8500/120, a G3'd 8600/300, and now I've got a B&W G3/350 with a Sonnet G4/400.

    So I know that there's a lot of factors which contribute to the lasting value of Macs. My posts were pointing out (to all these PC users here) 1) the fact that Macs hold their value, thus making "the price issue" less of an issue, and 2) that Apple helps this happen by pricing their new, latest-and-greatest machines consistently.
  • John Q Public - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    WELL...there's a lotta differing opinions 'round here...

    #49...

    you are partially correct about my Win2K server...there was MUCH Lemony-Goodness to that machine...50% of its issues were attributed to drivers (allegedly WHQL Certified Drivers at that)...35% were Microsoft Security Updates hosing things...and 15% were mysterious one time occurances that could be attributed to nothing specific that a reboot "Cured"...that machine's death knell came in the form of a bad APIC module...rather than replace the mobo and keep it running I chose to just take it down permanently...too many headaches...

    ...and I do not use my Mac to "Protect" my PC's from virii...quite the contrary...the primary reason I run Virex on the Mac is kind of a "Typhiod Mary" thing...a Macintosh generally will not be affected by a Windows Virus...BUT...that does not mean it won't spread the virus to other machines...considering there are two Macs on a network filled with WinBoxen...it's better to be safer by limiting exposure from possible problems by having a software (with most recent definitions) on my primary machine capable of detecting Windows Virii and removing them before there could be a problem...all of the PC's use a virus protection software (save the WinXP Pro box...which usually is not connected to anything BUT the Mac...dedicated Gigabit connection between them only...no internet sharing)...

    ...little secret...as far as security is concerned...unless you lock-out the firmware with a password (something 99% of Mac users know nothing about)...a 10 year old could crack your Mac's security by sitting in front of it for about 3 minutes (and access to an OS 9 CD)...but overall Macintosh is a fairly secure platform most because of limited numbers...and that the current OS's are BSD...but you also gotta remember...the FIRST virus was written for Unix...

    #52...

    ...the reason the price of a Macintosh is high in relation to that of a PC isn't Apple doing "Price Fixing"...but because of more limited numbers meaning Apple cannot afford to sell them as cheaply as say eMachines or HP/Compaq machines which are becoming so cheap you're likely to find them as prizes at the bottom of cereal boxes soon...

    ...likewise as far as Apple pricing goes...Apple is actually becoming a little more competitive (not much...but a little)...as sales of Macintosh increased between 2002 and 2003...the FW800 model which replaced the Mirrored Drive Door became the least expensive "High End" Macintosh...when the FW800 was discontinued (upon the G5's release) and the MDD was updated (with newer processors and drives) and re-released in June 2003 (as the last G4...MDD was the last PowerMac to be able to boot to OS 9 as well as OS X...FW800 and G5's are OS X ONLY)...the MDD was now even less expensive than the FW800 which replaced it 6 month earlier...

    ...as for keeping their value...there are not many people who can afford a new Macintosh (especially as a first computer)...so there's eBay...and yes...more limited number there account for higher resale values than an x86 machine...I saw a FW800 Dual 1.25Ghz on eBay this morning for a little over $1500 (with almost a day left for bidding)...

    ...another reason Mac's retain their value is akin to something a friend told me years ago..."Mac's are forever"...meaning a Macintosh can remain a viable machine much longer than a PC...after a Macintosh model has been out a few years and newer technologies become available...processor upgrades begin to appear...I have a couple older Macs...one is 225Mhz PowerPC 603ev (now updated to 500Mhz G3...more than double the original power for less cost than replacing at the time)...the other is a G3 All-In-One 266Mhz (the last "One Piece" Macintosh with integrated monitor and speakers before the iMac)...Sonnet produces a 1.0Ghz G4 upgrade for it...which I'll probably buy evntually...there are upgrades for every PowerMacintosh (and most of the earlier and consumer level...save iMac, eMac and iBook) except the MDD and FW800s...but those will come eventually too (hopefully in the form of a pair of Dual-Core Motorolas that should be out in a year or so)...

    #55...
    Let me be the first Mac-Fanatic to say you REALLY need a life...go outside...and play under the rays of the Big-Yellow-Death-Ball...and away from your Mac for a little while...

    FINALLY...to all the PC users who bash Macintosh without ever using one (several years ago I counted myself as one) and don't understand why some people go over the top (and some sickos who even anthropomorphize their Macs)...Macintosh is more than a computer...Apple is more than a faceless corporation who sells us our toys...and even if you use a Mac...you'll never be a Mac Fanatic (no matter how much you enjoy yours) until you get REALLY pissed off at Apple's Management Mistakes...and the fate of one little computer company in Cupertino, CA becomes important to you...
  • Ornery - Sunday, October 17, 2004 - link

    Resolving the price issue?

    "I'm wondering if a good way of tackling the price issue?"

    What's to resolve? What's to tackle? People cough up good money for shiny baubles all the time. Nothing new there.

    PC users measure bang for the buck with concrete performance measurements. Mac users find more subjective justification for the extra expense. Is that what this article is going to be about? The intangible, warm & fuzzy, goodness that makes up the "Mac experience"? Suit yourself, but I'd just save my breath. The best interest of most readers would be to save their money. The rest won't be lured from mesmerizing, shiny, gewgaws no matter how much they cost!
  • spitre - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link

    Actually I went in to pick up a microwave and bought a computer. You're mistaken. Please check yourself before you wreck yourself.

    Thank you.
  • scared - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link

    Please don't hurt us
  • rpitre - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link

    So you were shopping for a stereo and bought a computer instead. What I don't understand is what a Mac and a Vaio have to do with it.
  • iluvthemac&want2marry1 - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link

    #57

    *****Your argument that "if everyone went Mac, there would be lots of OS X malware" is true but misses a fundamental point: if YOU bought a mac right now, the marginal probability of OS X malware suddenly appearing would be almost zero.

    Actually you totally misqouted me. What I said was that the Macs obscurity is part of its safety net. You can qoute that correctly if you would like.

    58# & 59#

    I believe you have your fanboys mixed up. No one from what I've seen has been critical of the Mac as an inferior platform or have said that it should be avoided. Just some criticism about so called "Truths" of the Mac platform that get perpetuated but not defined. Some people have taken that as an attack on their whole computing paradigm. Thus everyone who sees differently is a "sheep" and not believers of the Mac Gospel.

    Puhleeeeese. It's a computer. So who cares if others "Think Different".
  • SD - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link

    #59, correct. With these tactics, sheep should always be the target.

    #60, :D
  • Coombs - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link

    with regard to posts #57 & 58.

    Check this out at http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/archives/000314.ht...

    An advantage of being a Mac aficionado is being able to enjoy visiting such irreverent sites and having a chuckle.

    Peace
  • brichpmr - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link

    That 'solid core' of Mac rejectors would fit the definition of 'sheep;' unless fanboys define their computing environment.
  • SD - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link

    #57, if you ask me, the best way to accomplish that would be to have a few people pretend to be obnoxious hardcore fanboys. This would make all the reasonable people using/advocating Macs look bad and convince people that the only reason to use a Mac is to "look different." That, in turn, would produce a solid core of users that would refuse to buy a Mac regardless of.. wait...
  • Mac Gamer - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    #22: Your argument that "if everyone went Mac, there would be lots of OS X malware" is true but misses a fundamental point: if YOU bought a mac right now, the marginal probability of OS X malware suddenly appearing would be almost zero. So what you actually want to do is to buy a Mac and then try to convince people not to buy one.

    Oh wait, good plan. Nobody buy Macs ok?
  • sid - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    dear all,
    i really don't know what macs have in them that most of time any thing said about them turns into a flame. why don't we see the fact that macs really do some things well , really well and thats reason they continue to sell though to a smaller number of users. in my view one major reason macs selling less is also their relative lack of availability in fast growing developing markets like india(incidentally i am an indian and i would love to own a mac though i am a amd based pc user currently).
    i agree with 53 that anand should ask some non geeky person to review the imac / emac though i would to have anand comment about it as he is one of the best.
    love tc
    sid
  • Macs are better - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    I'm sorry but Macs are better just face it. Apple took from Xerox and pioneered something that Microsoft continues to get wrong. Let's face the facts:

    Macs look better
    Macs smell better
    Macs have a nice boot note, PCs have a POST beep
    Macs have Apples on them
    Macs have spunk
    Steve Jobs is my hero
    Finding Nemo is my favorite movie

    You see, it is pretty revelatory I know but just take a deep breath and soak it in. Macs are just better. As the guys who use Macs to save the world from PC viruses (see above).

    Hooray!
  • Well said - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Well said #53. I like you. Maybe we can have a beer one day.
  • Mitch - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    A very interesting thread. I'm a Mac consultant - first time on anandtech. I think the low virus threat is really quite critical to the average user. My Windows counterparts spend half their time removing viruses/spyware/adware from their machines. I haven't even seen a Mac virus on a client computer in 5+ years. Now the Windows consultants may like that since they make money doing the removals. But the total net savings to the client is really quite staggering, both in money and productivity.

    I really do think Windows is fine for those that like it better. I have a G5 and a decent dell at my desk. I turn on the Dell about once a month, while my G5 hasn't been off in the year I've had it (other than power failures etc). But that's me. I think Anand's review was really quite good. I'm not sure if he'd be a good person to do an iMac review. He's obviously a high-end tech geek. The iMac is meant for a different sort of person. Maybe if he bought it and asked a non-geeky or semi-geeky neighbor to use it a month. It's kind of like asking a NASCAR driver to review a Lincoln Town Car.
  • wbwither - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    #35 -- what's your point? Macs wouldn't hold thier value so well if people weren't willing to pay for them. Sellers aren't artificially keeping their prices high because "they've already spent too much of their paychecks" on their Macs. If they were overpricing their used Macs, people simply wouldn't buy them. And yet, people buy them.

    And the more I've thought about it, the more I've realized that this is really just very smart price-management on the part of Apple. They're using their monopoly to keep their customers from getting pissed off that they paid X dollars a year ago for something that's now only worth Y dollars. Intel and AMD expose the yield issue in their pricing -- in some ways, it makes sense to pay twice as much for 200MHz more, because the 200MMHz faster chip is so much more rare when it comes to processor yields.

    Apple -- a computer company, not a processor company -- hides this yield problem by matching price points, yield be damned. When they first introduced the G4, they announced a 500MHz chip that never shipped. They had orders for it -- lots of orders -- but it was never shipped. I've heard that 2.5GHz G5s are pretty hard to come by currently. Apple could easily get away with selling them at $5,000 apiece, because there's that much demand for them. But then the guys who paid $5000 for them will gradually grow dissatisfied when the price is $2500 after 6 months, and the new fastest machine is $5000. By keeping their new Mac pricing consistent, Apple has done a good job of manipulating the market for used Macs, to keep Macs from depreciating as rapidly as PCs.

    To some folks, this may seem evil, because it's certainly manipulative and monopolistic behavior. I think it's just smart business on Apple's part, to keep from alienating their customers with each new release.

    P.S. I do have a Mac, a G4/400 running Jaguar, and several PCs running XP Pro and Linux.
  • OsamaBinApple - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Osama Bin Laden prefers the Macintosh platform. In fact I heard he's going to change his Anti-American sentiment to iJihad.
  • ENOUGH - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Shut up with all this Mac talk, it's giving me a headache and money seems to be magically disappearing out of my wallet.
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    #41 Exactly my point and apparently yours. Well said.

    #43

    ...don't you mean comparing Apples to Lemons???...and Macintosh isn't really niche...nor is it mainstream...eMac, iMac and iBook are meant for consumers as an alternative to PCs...PowerMac and PowerBook are meant for professionals who would rather WORK than REPAIR...

    That's pretty clever. However, that pretty much sums up what a lot of Mac users think. They have the love of the Mac so engrained in their psyche that everything else computer related is bunk. Yet of course many of those same people need to use a PC for stuff because they can't do it on a Mac. I was right there with you until I realized I'd go months without seeing a post for Mac related work in the paper.

    You assumption that Macs are for people who would rather "WORK than Repair" is bunk and clearly illustrates that you have a lot of understanding when it comes to the PC platform. Perhaps you're speaking more from experience than stating a fact.

    "I own PCs and Macs...my personal preference is my PowerMac FW800...but I have an AthlonXP for Flight Sims and Visual Studio...my Server (aka FrankenBox) runs OS/2 (NOT Windows)...and has had roughly 1 hour downtime (other than power outages caused by recent Tropical Storms/Hurricanes) in the past 4 years...it's slow...but it's stable...nothing like my Win2000 Server that was down 2-3 times a week for about a year...BUT...I run Virex on my Mac for the purpose of protecting the two Win2k...four WinXP Home and one WinXP Pro boxes on my network...seeing that OS/2 hasn't had a virus written for it since the mid-90's...I'm not worried there..."

    Nothing wrong with having a personal preference but your preference doesn't prove a point related to anything stated in my first post (there are now several). Your comparison of OS/2 and Windows 2K Server speaks more of your comfort level with OS/2 over the windows platform. That's fine but to say your 2K server was "down 2-3 times a week for about a year" tells me that perhaps the issue was more related to configuration than the OS being a "lemon". It doesn't really prove anything other than you having a higher comfort level with certain products.

    There seems to be some kind of common theme you share with the previous poster about the Mac being able to protect PCs from viruses. The Mac OS is doing nothing other than providing the platform OS that the AV program runs on. You're providing no higher level of security than a PC running AV software. I hope there is AV software on your PCs and you're not solely relying on the Mac.

    I'm all for AV makers to provide this functionality. With the lack of viruses on the Mac why the hell buy Norton every year for $49? They've got to included additional functionality in there to keep the profits coming. That's a great feature but no testament to the vastly improved security of OS X.

    As far as #46 goes:

    There are about 25 million Mac users out there using various versions of the OS (about 10 million using OS X) - Witty's target was 12,000. You're going to have to come up with another explanation.

    Look at the target number. You posted a link in relation to a secuirty flaw of a specific product not the OS. So of course that vulnerability is only going to infect the install base running the program(s) not patched. All your post proves is that a program had a vulnerability and someone exploited it.

    "Witty only attacked computers running unpatched versions of BlackICE firewalls."

    So what's my point? No one said that the smaller Mac user base was the *only* reason it had so few viruses or vulnerabilities. My point was (and always has been) that the Mac cannot be touted as some superior, more secure platform to windows. The only way to test this would be to open up the flood gates and the amount of users and see how the OS responds to a myriad of threats. That hasn't happened and probably won't.

    PS. I love Macs and I want to marry one.
  • Shawn Morel - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    I think it might be a very good idea to look at both the new iMac and laptop offerings. They are much cheaper than the top of line G5 and you might be surprised at the results. I use a similar set of applications as what you described (plus some other development tools). My experience with my laptop is actually quite similar to what you described in your month with a G5 review. Keep in mind that my laptop is only a G4 667MHz with nothing more than an ATI 7500 mobility (32MB vram). Things still run as smoothly when it comes to interface responsiveness; this even when I am dual monitoring with the built in 15" lcd and a 19" crt. What does slow down is cpu intensive background tasks like compiling large java apps or rendering video. But I still find myself browsing the web, checking email, using exposé etc. with these tasks running in the background with no major drop in usability.

    On another note, I work for RIM and I can fully understand how you couldn't live without your blackberry on your primary machine :)
  • Doc - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Current SlashDot thought on Cherry OS is that it is a fraud:

    http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/10/12/1622247.s...
  • Doc - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    A number of posters mention the Mac is virus free only because of low numbers. Here's a good explanation of why that is simply not correct:

    http://www.bynkii.com/generic_mac_stuff/archives/2...

    "On March 8th, 2004, eEye Digital Security discovered a vulnerability in ISS's BlackICE/RealSecure products. On March 9th, ISS released a patch for the vulnerability. On March 18th, eEye published a high-level description of the vulnerability. 36 hours later, Witty was released into the wild. Within 45 minutes, every vulnerable machine was infected, about 12,000 machines in total."

    There are about 25 million Mac users out there using various versions of the OS (about 10 million using OS X) - Witty's target was 12,000. You're going to have to come up with another explanation.
  • Doc - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    #35 : "There is a reason why Mac's still hold their value. Because people selling them have alread spent their paycheck on a new Mac so they have to make some money somewhere. Also, PC's have a much higher turnover rate than Macs. There is always a new PC out there waiting to be bought, however new higher-spec Macs dont come out untill a couple years after the recent one."

    You've just re-written a central tenant of economic theory: that prices reflect what the market will support. I'm going to move on from here to eBay my old toothbrush for a million bucks - Thanks!

    Macs refreshed once every two years? Before you continue may I suggest you download the Windows version of Mactracker here:

    http://www.mactracker.ca/
  • John Q Public - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    #42...

    trust me when I say x86 emulators on the Mac can be just as painful...VirtualPC is better than most...but still ungodly slow...
  • John Q Public - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    #30...

    "Wow, that sounds exactly like what is posted on Symantec's website. So is this feature of Norton 9.0 for the Mac representative of OS X's superior security? Considerig Symantec makes this product I wouldn't think so. And so what if it does detect PC viruses? Aren't you running AV protection on your PCs? "
    ...even moreso than in PC land...NEVER mention the "N" word around a serious Mac user...Symantec's line of products can hose a Mac nearly as fast as they can a PC...

    "To say the Mac is more secure than windows is comparing apples to oranges as they operate in two different worlds: The niche and the mainstream."

    ...don't you mean comparing Apples to Lemons???...and Macintosh isn't really niche...nor is it mainstream...eMac, iMac and iBook are meant for consumers as an alternative to PCs...PowerMac and PowerBook are meant for professionals who would rather WORK than REPAIR...

    I own PCs and Macs...my personal preference is my PowerMac FW800...but I have an AthlonXP for Flight Sims and Visual Studio...my Server (aka FrankenBox) runs OS/2 (NOT Windows)...and has had roughly 1 hour downtime (other than power outages caused by recent Tropical Storms/Hurricanes) in the past 4 years...it's slow...but it's stable...nothing like my Win2000 Server that was down 2-3 times a week for about a year...BUT...I run Virex on my Mac for the purpose of protecting the two Win2k...four WinXP Home and one WinXP Pro boxes on my network...seeing that OS/2 hasn't had a virus written for it since the mid-90's...I'm not worried there...
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    I wouldn't recommend wasting money on a Mac emulator for Windows. These happen to be extremely slow.
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    #31 You seem to have very little knowledge of the corporate world to think that adding a Macs into a Windows corporate network would not affect the IT support staff. The number of 3rd party software programs most companies use is significant. Most of these programs are not written for the Mac because it is not cost effective to develop enterprise software for a platform that almost no one uses in the corporate environment (granted, there are a few industries where Macs are found, but only a few). And I hope you're not so clueless as to think that the same people who are paid to support your Windows OS and programs would support other platforms. Companies would have to hire support staff trained for the Mac platform, adding to their already expensive purchase. Considering that most companies spend considerable effort to unify all of their machines under a single platform (and as someone else pointed out, even a single manufacturer), throwing in another platform would not make sense.

    As for *nix, most companies use these for their own servers, or for development purposes. Throwing a bunch of *nix machines at employees (or even Mac) would result in lost productivity as employees would have to become familiar with the new platform.
  • John Q Public - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Actually I think Anand should do a review on a Mac that is a little more pedestrian...something mom and pop novice user would likely buy...an eMac...in its own right it is an excellent entry-level machine and speedy enough for whatever the majority of computer users would throw at it...net surfin'...office and productivity...e-mail...and music/mp3...
  • ModFX - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Well just tonight I found this, Cherry OS(http://www.cherryos.com/), I think I am going to try this out I really would like to try out a mac I mean I got nothing agaist it other then there price. It cost $50 dollars and you still need a copy of Mac OSX. It lets your windows machine have a virtual mac desktop. So for $50 dollars I get to try out a mac a lot different then a decent G4 or G5.
  • brian - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    I meant WOULDN'T say a fool.
  • brian - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    I would say a fool. They make it for a reason. I would say extra-careful.
  • Anonymous - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    If you run any anti-virus software on Mac OS X for any reason, you are a fool.
  • brian - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    #24

    There is a reason why Mac's still hold their value. Because people selling them have alread spent their paycheck on a new Mac so they have to make some money somewhere. Also, PC's have a much higher turnover rate than Macs. There is always a new PC out there waiting to be bought, however new higher-spec Macs dont come out untill a couple years after the recent one.
  • DUDE - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    I said mainframes! Who gives a damn about a computer that shows a smiley face when it boots up? What the hell?

    Do I have to say it again?

    Have you ever hacked into mainframes? Well I have, whew and it isn't very easy, there's things about mainframes that make me feel queasy. Have you ever hacked into mainframes?
  • Anonymous - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    I wasn't referring to an .exe but to the nature of viruses needing to be executed in some way for infection to propagate. You don't mention Norton in your diatribe about the Mac OS but instead you say:

    if for no other reason than to catch Windows viruses and stop their spread to colleagues on PCs.

    Inferring that Macs on the network added this extra layer of security but a PC running Norton would have done the same thing. You haven't proved anything other than Norton 9.0 for Mac being a pretty cool program. Your "corporate network" does little more than act as a lice comb. All your colleagues need is decent AV protection. Perhaps you can recommend a good one. :P

    All I'm saying is that Mac users have the added secuirty of being in a niche group. The remarks are not meant to be tiresome but reflect a perfectly good point. Whether 10 million+ users is a lot or a drop in the bucket doesn't matter. Apple obviously has enough users to keep profits coming and to stay afloat. Apple has to stay in business for the sake of us all so it could keep giving Microsoft ideas to rip off. We all in turn reap the benefits. ;P

    "You should include Macs in your enterprise network because diversity is good. The fact that you might have to support more than one OS is irrelevant...that's your job."

    I don't have the time or money in my budget to incorporate new toys for the sake of diversity. Diversity is good? Are we talking the USA here or a frigging network? Most companies stick with one computer brand (let alone one OS) because it's easier to deploy, manage images, and maintain. So yes it's my job and NO I don't have to. It's my job to support the users, the equipment and secure the data in the most timely and cost effective manner while returning the highest ROI. Not to create computer utopia where Macs run through the lilly fields and save PCs from macros.
  • Anonymous - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    Back to the original article...

    I think it would be a great idea to do a review on the iMac G5! The best one for the price, is obviously the 17" without the superdrive. I would like to thank you again, Anand, for your fantastic article on the G5. You are amazingly unbiased, and very in-depth with your analysis. Thank you thank you thank you.
  • brichpmr - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    I don't follow your comment on executables. Macs don't run .exe attachments. I use Norton AntiVirus on my Panther box; not because there are ANY native OSX viruses, but because there are Windows viruses that I don't want to pass along through a Word macro. Many colleagues I deal with are not protected by my corporate network. Your continued remarks about Macs and market share are tiresome....10 million+ OSX users is a significant number. It's not whether I assert that Panther is more secure than XP. Macs operate in the same 'world' as XP...I use both in that same world. You should include Macs in your enterprise network because diversity is good. The fact that you might have to support more than one OS is irrelevant...that's your job.
  • Anonymous - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    #29

    "I can take a Panther based Mac and run it on an NT network just fine"

    I didn't say you can't. Perhaps you should read my post again as you seem to have confused what I wrote for something else (e.g. TCO mentioned before).

    "The catechism that Macs are less virus-threatened due to low market share is partial truth....the architecture of Panther compared with XP also makes a difference."

    Considering that many viruses are executables throws that argument out the window. If there is a Mac virus and you don't have AV protection when you open that file you get infected. I don't see the mythical powers of Panther coming into play here. There are viruses for every platform including OS X. We wouldn't really know the true security of OS X unless it was put to the test in a higher usage environment. So while the Macs paltry market share and it's benefit on the security of the platform might be a "partial truth", it is a truth nonetheless.

    "if for no other reason than to catch Windows viruses and stop their spread to colleagues on PCs."

    Wow, that sounds exactly like what is posted on Symantec's website. So is this feature of Norton 9.0 for the Mac representative of OS X's superior security? Considerig Symantec makes this product I wouldn't think so. And so what if it does detect PC viruses? Aren't you running AV protection on your PCs?

    From Symantec's site:

    Now it also finds and removes PC viruses to ensure that you don't spread infections to colleagues

    "I would argue that including macs on the enterprise network would decrease the 'amount of crap' that you already deal with"


    I doubt that greatly as it is another platform I have to support, implement, and maintain. That requires different software, different licensing, and different enterprise AV protection. Why would I include Macs just as a threat deterrent? If there are users that require a Mac so be it. Lets face it, it's a Windows world in the enterprise and Apple's market share can be measure in the negative in that segment.

    I like Macs and I've been using a Mac since System 6.0 way back in the days of the dogcow. I even have my old Performa 476 in the garage. I have no quarrel with the Mac and dig it however, Mac specific users tend to have big heads and even bigger claims. To say the Mac is more secure than windows is comparing apples to oranges as they operate in two different worlds: The niche and the mainstream.
  • brichpmr - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    #26, I can take a Panther based Mac and run it on an NT network just fine. The catechism that Macs are less virus-threatened due to low market share is partial truth....the architecture of Panther compared with XP also makes a difference. No Mac user should run their rig without virus protection, if for no other reason than to catch Windows viruses and stop their spread to colleagues on PCs. I would argue that including macs on the enterprise network would decrease the 'amount of crap' that you already deal with.
  • ROBOT - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    ALL YOUR MACS ARE BELONG TO US!!!
  • Question - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    Have you ever hacked into mainframes? I have, whew and it isn't very easy, there's things about mainframes that make me feel queasy. Have you ever hacked into mainframes?
  • Agreed - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    #25 I agree. I don't have to hose my computer down before shut it down. Most of the maintenance that runs on my comp is automated when I'm AWAY from my computer. If I'm getting brakes on my car I take the car to the shop and do other things while the mainteance is performed. I don't sit there and watch them do it. So the whole issue of detoxing your computer and the 90 minutes being spent is all relative to what you do on your computer. Maybe #21 is looking at a lot of porn....ya never know. ;P

    "I use XP and Panther daily and admin XP, so I know how much money my company has spent to continually fight off the vermin that affect Windows users. That expenditure in resource directly contributes to both my job security and, in a negative way, to my company bottom line. I have seen no compelling evidence that TCO ever favors XP in relation to Panther. I favor a heterogeneous client base...that diversity helps to stunt the spread of exploits."

    Actually, if you read post I was referring to a lower TCO on the Mac, not on XP. Factoring in the appreciate/depreciation and Appleware I believe it can be disputed as such. It's all in how you look at it.

    Once again, it comes down to the threat factor. There are far less threats on the Mac because the Mac has less market share. The PC has paved the way for mainstream computing do in part to the cost factor (not necessarily a good thing) and Microsoft's dominance in the OS market.

    The problem with your argument is that ALL companies spend quite a deal on preventive maintance and disaster prevention. That's what you have to do. Would you have a Mac based network with no virus protection? Of course not. Even though the Mac has far fewer viruses because virus writers don't waste their time on 2%. That's a good thing but that is a false sense of security.

    When you factor in the domain environment securing PCs is a lot easier (and harder) thanks in part to group policy, and management tools that work better on Windows PCs; that is, if you're running a windows network and using windows PCS. I can deploy an OS, software, ghost images all without leaving my desk via RIS and SMS. The inclusion of a good company wide policy of computer usage and locking down rights will prevent a lot from happening. I don't see the inclusion of Macs in a network environment as any great plus. It's just another platform you need to support seperately from all the other crap you already have to.
  • SD - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    #21, at the risk of sounding obnoxious (which isn't so much a risk as it is a given), I don't think you can really say that you spend a lot more money because you spend 90 minutes more a month detoxing. (This also isn't a very conservative figure; in fact, it's on the high side if you're cautious.) Time is money and all that, but is your salary actually docked by the amount of time (in percent) a month your PC spends detoxing itself? If so, you have a very weird job.

    I'm not saying frequent detoxing can't interfere with productivity. It certainly can. But there's a difference between starting Ad-Aware and Spybot once a week before you go out to lunch and starting it when you were in the middle of working. Intelligent budgeting of time should be able to completely nullify any productivity penalty such minor amounts of time used would incur, unless you have to work 24 hours a day.
  • wbwither - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    One fact that must be taken into account in the pricing debate is that MACS HOLD VALUE to an extent that almost defies logic in the tech world. There is a robust used market for Macs, and it's seemingly linear with respect to processor power and price.

    Take a look at used G4's on eBay. A G4/400MHz/512MB/30GB/DVD (released in September 1999 -- Anand reviewed the PIII 533B & 600B at that time) is about to go for nearly $300 ($280 at the moment). Try to find a desktop PIII 600 for $300. A dual-867MHz G4 (released August 2002) is going for over $1000. Anand introduced the Thoroughbred Athlon XP 2600+/2400+ that same month. Again, try to find *any* AXP 2600+ that would reasonably sell for over $1000, when that same $1000 will buy you a pretty kickass A64 system with a Radeon 9800 Pro (going from the latest AT buying guides). Finally, a dual 2.0GHz G5 still sells for $2500 on Apple's site. Anand could easily get over $2000 for his machine on eBay. I can't think of a single used Dell, Compaq, etc. that would reasonably go for over $2000 on eBay.

    Now to explain what I meant about the linear price to performance thing.... a single-proc 400MHz G4 has about 1/10 the performance of a dual 2GHz G5. Now, $280 ~= 1/10 * 2500 (the price of a new dual 2GHz G5). The dual-proc 867Mhz G4 = about 43% of the processor performance of a dual-2GHz G5. Now, .43 * 2,500 = $1083, very close to what that G4 was going for, just a few hours before the end of the auction.

    So, a new Mac is almost more of an investment than a new PC. The PC's market price will deteriorate very rapidly when new, competing chips come out; and Intel and AMD's price structure is already pretty absurd anyway, what with the chip prices rising almost exponentially as you bump up in speed. That means that your $800 chip will be worth $200 in a few months. Not the case with Apple, who prices their machines more reasonably. With Apple, 25% more speed = a less than 25% increase in price. None of this "you'll pay twice the price for 200MHz more" crap like we get with Intel and AMD. Of course, it's hard to be sure about this since Apple doesn't sell just the bare processors (and the market for used Macs focuses mostly on used whole Macs, not Mac parts), but overall their pricing seems much more reasonable, and this leads to much more reasonable levels of depreciation.
  • brichpmr - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    #22, I use XP and Panther daily and admin XP, so I know how much money my company has spent to continually fight off the vermin that affect Windows users. That expenditure in resource directly contributes to both my job security and, in a negative way, to my company bottom line. I have seen no compelling evidence that TCO ever favors XP in relation to Panther. I favor a heterogeneous client base...that diversity helps to stunt the spread of exploits.
  • Noah Body - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    #21

    When I think of "out of box security" I think of a more tested, refined, and secured product "out of the box". A product that is already poised to tackle existing and upcoming security vulverabilities or not have them (which is impossible). OS X is only a more secure platform (if truly that) so long as it remains obscure. It's the same argument for Linux.

    Its like me saying that I'm better off riding a bike to work because 95% of people drive cars whereas 2% ride bicycles. I'm safer because I don't have to drive on the freeway, and the TCO is cheaper (no insurnace, no gas, so called maintenance; use all the free Appleware). But what if that 2% became 10% or even 15%? I'm sure you'd be hearing a lot more about bicycle accidents. It's the same with the Mac except you're driving a $2,000+ bicycle.

    Is that a good thing? Perhaps for some. For me I don't want to pay a premium for a namesake (though we do it for Windows) or for software and hardware that is generally more expensive than it's PC counterpart. This really factors into play when you consider that the brick and mortar sales of PCs are from people who think price rather than security.

    That being said I'd much rather work on a Mac and cruise in style than a linux box. The Mac is a very nice bike all set up to go, Linux is a bike you have to build yourself.

  • brichpmr - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    #17, I agree that careful PC users should have minimal problems, but if I spend 1 1/2 hours per month maintaining my Windows system against malware (and that may be conservative), then the cost advantage for the PC goes right out the window within the first year.

    #18, regarding 2% market share, we all know that OSX will not see even 10% of the market anytime soon; so for whatever the reasons (obscurity or better permissions structure), Mac users have much better out of the box security, and that should be important to 95% of average users who just want an enjoyable and safe computing environment.
  • Appu - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link

    #19 - Filesystems commonly used on *nix platforms are similar in behaviour to the Mac's. They rarely go above 2% as long as the ratio of free to used space on the partition is greater than 0.3 or so.
  • Doc - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    You might like to look at drive fragmentation & how Mac OS X seems impervious to it - there is a script here:

    http://www.kernelthread.com/software/hfsdebug/

    You can run on your Mac and then compare XP.

    My Mac after nine months since install & much moving around of 1000's of my photos - on & off to external drives gave a figure of just 0.7% of (the over 100,000) files fragmented. I asked a friend to check his XP install only one week after a hard drive upgrade to his laptop and it gave overall fragmention at 17%.
  • Anonymous - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    "should compare depreciation over time, and the time/money variable where Mac users don't have to 'detox' their computers. All of this is part of the TCO comparison that should be presented objectively...not just looking at initial cost."

    We're not talking cars here, we're talking computers. Moore's law really comes into play here not only as a basis of how technology changes but as a general depreciation "rule" for computer tech. Lets face it, the bulk of the computer buying public isn't worried about computer 'depreciation', none of that factors into the equation. It's usually price and availability both of which are the Mac's achilles heel. Though considering Apple is the sole provider for the Mac platform I'm sure the price is justified. They're obviously not in business to compete with 'cheap pcs' but to make a profit. They're the sole source for hardware/software R&D and have to make it up some how.

    As far as detoxing goes you have to be real. Apple has 2% of market share. What's the point of even bothering with those numbers from a hacker/malware/spyware/virus makers prospective. Crack those market share numbers up a bit and I'm sure all the supposed security of the Mac OS will be a lot more contested.

    PS. I love Macs and want to marry one.
  • SD - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    I can't be the only one that laughed at the phrase "a mysterious third speaker".

    Uh, anyway. I'd definitely like to see another article on that, especially if it took into account a LOT of factors. The more, the better, given how likely people are to raise other factors afterwards in the comments.

    #14, one thing to note. If you're a PC user who's careful with their computer, or just a marginally cautious PC user behind a good firewall machine, you really don't have to spend much time "detoxing" you machine. Maybe an hour and a half a month average, assuming you sit and stare at things when they're running. That's not really totally necessary, either, actually (Ad-Aware hasn't caught anything for the last two months, I'm getting bored ;( ), but I like to be careful.
  • Michael - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    I would suggest going for either a 17" Imac or a 12" Ibook if you want to tackle the $ issue. Really, Macs are totally competitive on price. The only issue is they don't make POS computers like other manufacturers do so they can't hit bargain basement prices. Although the Emac does pretty well at $799.
  • Louis - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    I think you just want an excuse to get more Macs!
  • brichpmr - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    Anand, a review of the iMac G5 would be interesting, especially given your even-handed approach. However, the relative price of entry is only one component in evaluating the pricing issue. You also should compare depreciation over time, and the time/money variable where Mac users don't have to 'detox' their computers. All of this is part of the TCO comparison that should be presented objectively...not just looking at initial cost.
  • rpitre - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    I'm sure that your review of the iMac G5 would be really interesting and useful but I think that that review would be addressing different issues from those addressed by your eval of the PowerMac G5.

    It seemd to me that your evaluation of the G5 pretty much told the story for those who like and value the kinds of things that you like and value in a PC. In that context it seems like your remarks about price are good guidance.
  • Peter - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    I think an iMac for a month would be a great article. I'm a die-hard PC user, but have always been intrigued by Macs, especially the newer ones, running OS X.
  • ksherman - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    I agree that it would be an intersting article... see how the openGL GUI works with a vastly inferior processor than the dualie G5. Also, as already stated, a power book article merrits considereation as i have yet to find anything that compares to it in terms of price (yes i mean price), size, looks, and raw power.
  • Patrick - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    Take the G5 iMac for a spin and tell us what you think.

    I love the 20" I bought my wife. It's just a beautiful machine. The first thing you need to do is get over the lowly GPU and anemic RAM (I put in 1 GB before I even turned it on) and then enjoy... you won't regret it.
  • MisterSpeaker - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    Speaking of speakers: The speakes on the 12" PowerBook are incredible for a machine that size. They sit on the back of the machine and reflect and resound of the screen, which creates a much bigger and better sound than you'd expect. There is also a mysterious third speaker that sits inside the machine and works a bit like a tiny subwoofer. Excellent, full sound from a tiny machine.
  • dgoodnow - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    Something to watch with the PowerBooks--or listen to, rather--Windoze laptop speaker have come a long way, particularly on the multimedia models. The speakers were what drove me to buy my VIAO laptop rather than the 17" G4 which I had walked into CompUSA to pick up.
    Yup, check in hand, I asked a clerk if I could play a CD...he came up with Pantera (rock!) from the break-room, and I bought a completely different kind of machine.
    I would REALLY like to see a comparison of what the G5 can do compared with iTanium 2 and Athlon 64. Maybe run SuSE on all of them for benchmarking Doom3 or Unreal 2004 and some labratory/mathematical problems/(that radiotelescope analysis thingie?)
  • Anonymous - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    GTaudiophile, why would Jobs contact Anand about anything?
  • xype - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    You can test iLife together with the iMac while you're at it.
  • GTaudiophile - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link

    Anand: I'm curious, did Steve Jobs contact you about that article by any chance?

  • Commodus - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    I'd like to see a separate iMac G5 review. I don't think gaming benchmarks would be in order (we all know it's not a real gaming rig), but perhaps the ergonomics, general UI responsiveness, etc.
  • Eug - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    Interesting... a month with an iMac (or perhaps an iBook) would be a nice add-on to your article. However, it seems like an awfully expensive experiment, esp. after you've spent so much on the dual G5 (which will only make the iMac/iBook feel slow).
  • Doc - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    An excellent idea. If you want an easy way to get an idea of UK Mac depreciation take a look at the second hand resale site/newspaper at:

    www.loot.com

    The newspapers are published over much of the country.
  • Mac Gamer - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    You might want to look at laptops as well, Macs compare particularly well in that segment.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now