News & Views

Does a tower case with a quad core CPU, 4GB of RAM, and an NVIDIA 8800 cost more if you buy it from Apple instead of Gateway? Absolutely. BUT only if you are just talking about buying the hardware. We all know there is more to a computer purchase than that. When you consider the complete OS, the included software, and the level of service, the price evens out quite a bit.

First of all, Apple includes the complete OS. Adding Vista Ultimate to a PC costs extra, pumping up the price significantly. Apple includes word processing, simple spreadsheet, and a number of other useful applications. Adding this same level of capabilities to a Vista PC will require additional software purchases. Add these costs to the price of the hardware and suddenly the price gap is a lot narrower than it seems at first glance.

Just a couple more observations: I've used both Vista and OSX. I've used identical applications available on both. Both were running on hardware "certified as compatible" and I had zero crashes on either. I also had zero mal-ware infections on either. Both were very stable and easy to use. Both have brain-dead easy installation routines that worked perfectly with supported hardware. Both started up with tutorials for new users. They both just worked for me with no trouble at all.

What about performance though? I'm mostly a Vista user these days, because there is a lot of software not available on Macs. BUT I want to tell everyone OSX just beats the heck out of Vista in one key area: resource footprint. By this, I mean RAM, GPU, and CPU usage. OSX is simply leaner and meaner. With the same CPU, RAM, and GPU in both machines, I saw less RAM and CPU being used in nearly every task I tried and despite using less resources, the OSX system felt more responsive.

I'm guessing this is why an Apple machine can often get away with using less hardware for the same tasks. This is one important difference that nobody ever seems to address for some reason. Instead the groupies say easier, more stable, more secure, etc. None of which is really true in my own experience. For a user like myself, Vista and OSX provide virtually identical levels of stability, security, and ease of use. But, OSX wins hands down on resource usage. You get more bang out of your hardware.

The standard 64 bit address space is another big difference I liked. Using 8 GB of RAM on your motherboard is no problem at all in OSX. Think about that. It needs less RAM but it is able to address more. That's a nice combination if you work with large images and video. More RAM is available for your data.

So what more could you possibly want? I'm glad you asked.

In a word, software. The Mac needs more off-the-shelf software. If you could walk into Best Buy and have the same software choices available for Macs that are available for Windows, it would become impossible for Vista to compete in any identical hardware comparison. OSX would just eat it alive. For now, though, most of us are stuck with Windows because we need that software selection. After all, it is the software that actually lets us do things, not the OS.

The bottom line? Macs may cost more initially if you only look at identical hardware, but including the full OS, and useful basic software levels the playing field on cost. Add in the more efficient use of hardware resources and you end up with an arguably quicker system with more usable RAM. The efficiencies of OSX mean identical hardware isn't truly identical. The Mac gives you more punch on the same hardware. So you are getting more bang for those extra bucks. But this isn't enough for a win. Why not?

The one glaring blemish for the Mac is software availability. If there were more software available, the Mac would win hands-down. As it is, the lack of software ruins any hope of a clean victory for the Mac. If Apple can somehow address this, the Mac will become a clear winner.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, Vista, Windows