Industrial Hemp

New Microsoft Ad Targets High Cost of Macs

I have both: a WindowsXP PC that is 5 years old and a 3 year old iMac G5.

I do all web design on a Mac and use PC for business since FedEx Shipping Manager does not work on Mac.

In short, both are fine. However, the PC requires security software. I've had AVG and Kaspersky. Those cost around $70-100/yr for the full suite. I downloaded software and ended up with a rootkit virus that replicated itself each time the lower-end software would get rid of it, so I had to get the full-fledged anti-this, anti-that to get rid of it. This also took my time to set-up, and run. The iMac does not need this.

I also defrag my hard drive once each week, run a full virus check each week and use Little Registry Cleaner to keep the Windows XP computer in top-condition.

The PC and iMac both boot-up in decent times, the iMac is faster. However, since I login to each computer, the PC takes a LONG time before its really usable, before you can launch and use an application. The iMac is ready much sooner.

The only downside to my iMac is that its a G5 processor. I wish I had purchased it a few months later when the Intel move was announced -- and implemented. The #1 downside to Mac's are that Apple makes software run on the newest hardware and does not care much about hardware they made a few years prior. Once more, my PC is over 5 years old.

The PC is annoying to use a lot of times. When you launch an application and move to another, you will be switched to the recently launched app. It you are working in an app and another app needs your attention, you will be switched over. If Windows has downloaded and update and asks to reboot, you will be asked every 10 minutes. If you walk away or leave for lunch, the PC will decide it knows best and will reboot for you. This is not user friendly.

As for the Mac, the biggest issue I have is that PC's have "adult sized" keyboards and mice that have "real" scroll wheels. Apple has junky keyboard and mouse. Most "power users" of Macs will agree as they usually purchase a Logitech set. If you perform any sort of data input, the PC is better. Filling out web forms are better on a PC than Mac. You can tab to all fields. The Mac still can not figure out how to tab to a drop-down menu (e.g., choose your state from a list). The Mac also does not allow for hitting the "end" key to go to end of sentence, etc. So, PC is better for people who like to use keyboard and avoid using mouse -- to be faster and more productive.

So, I use both Mac and PC. I like the PC more for the most part. It certainly is cooler, easier to use, etc. However, the PC is reliable -- if you maintain it. Most PC's are maintained by an IT department. Home users of PCs do NOT have this "luxury." Most people who use and promote PCs do NOT take this into consideration. That is where the TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP comes to mind. Yes, the Mac is less expensive when you consider anti-this and anti-that software that is NECESSARY due to PC's lackluster security and need for maintenance (e.g., a good 5-10 registry errors per day on my well maintained PC).
The downside to Mac is the iMac is the best price-point for most people, but the monitor is tied-into the computer. So, if you go with a mini, you have less powerful hardware and are better off with the iMac. Otherwise, if you go with tower (Pro) you pay a lot for computer and monitor.

PCs are "less expensive" but that means you get a Pentium processor and no graphics card. So beware of $500 computer. Its not the same. Its not a Core 2 Duo at that price! If so, there is no graphics card, rather "integrated graphics" which are performed on processor. Really, it comes down to daily / weekly maintenance of PCs. That's what makes them more expensive in the long run ... unless you have an IT department.

Why Microsoft Will Never Win (Again)

Re: Yohoho on MS Exchange
Oh yeah, that's right. Gates wants to reduce spam by charging a penny for each email sent. Yeah, that'll fix the problem of spam! Come on...

Microsoft is a very successful business. Their approach to everything is "all business." I recall having Entourage (mail client for Mac), but in order to have spell checking, you need to have the Office Suite.

Microsoft has this same approach to most everything else. He's one piece of software, but if you want this feature, you'll need to purchase another product, ... and so on.

I recall Windows Server having an "add-on" for managing memory! Hello? The most basic function on an operating system is to manage memory! However, if you want it to do an ever better job, purchase this add-on, etc.

MS does not want to license anything from anyone, ... which is understandable, ... but at the same time they rush to reinvent the wheel each type a new technology comes out so they can be the "me to" of the tech industry. Well, a lot of the time their competing product just doesn't stack up against the others due to their resources being used to always rush to stomp out any particular competitor.
Google is better for search; Oracle is better for databases, iPod is better than Zune, etc.

Why Microsoft Will Never Win (Again)

Microsoft has Windows and Office. Those are their cash cows. They've tried with MSN, but Google and Yahoo! are much more widely used. They've tried with Zune, but iPod kills them. Microsoft loves to say how innovative they are, but history proves the point that they have yet to take a page from 3M's book.

Yes, 3M, the "Post-It Note" folks are known to have to produce new products every few years -- and those new products will be their cash cow. I think there is a saying something along the lines that "80% of 3M's revenue will be from new products!"
So, look as Microsoft's business. Their cash cow dates back from DOS and Office. That's pretty much what the company was founded on and has been doing for over 25 years. Seems to me that the Internet is STILL not on their radar! All the while, if you look at Apple, the Macintosh is what their baby has always been, but now the iPod and its iTunes music sales have been the biggest part of their growth. They are looking to do it again with the iPhone.

When I lived in Seattle, most people focused far too much on marketshare. The thing is that while Apple had 3% marketshare, they could double to 6% and still have plenty room to go. However, people fail to think about a 30+ year old business that can easily double and still have plenty of room to grow! On the flipside, Microsoft has 93% or so marketshare today -- and let me tell you -- you can't double that! So, marketshare can help show you the OPPORTUNITY for growth. Microsoft has been holding on far too long to its baby. Speaking of which, MS asked Apple to "knife the baby" and get rid of QuickTime. Can you imagine the world w/o QuickTime? Its only the basis for MPEG4 and what the iPod / iTunes is built upon.