- Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:58 am
I will state here that I use (and am fluent with) both PC and Mac. But don't get me started about Microsoft!
Typically these 'bang for buck' comparisons are short-term, classic 'economic rationalism' — somewhat irrational and with a very short term view. The problem with such a comparison is reliability, actual performance, and length of 'life'. Oh, and reality. I guess that's more than one.
Reliability is good if this is your tool. When you need a quality tool, you need it to work well. You need it to work when you need it to work, no faffing around with downgrading your OS, no virus chit, no constant maddening messages, etc, etc, etc.
Actual (not theoretical) performance increases a computer's working life (delaying redundancy ). PCs may have massive CPU speeds quoted which are normally only theoretical speeds, nothing much to do with reality (ie. doesn't consider everything else in the system that slow processing down like RAM, BUS speed, etc etc etc).
So while a Mac may cost twice as much now, it's parts are likely to be way more reliable and it would normally last at least twice as long as it's PC counterpart before becoming redundant for performance resource reasons (eg video etc).
In the end (if you use your computer as a tool), it's cheaper, far less frustrating AND better to own a Mac. Generally speaking. And because of reliability and speed, your machine will be able to serve you when you need it!
I use my day job computer for heavy processing and I've restarted the thing twice in 4 years.
And when you upgrade your Mac, you plug it in to the old one and click 2 buttons to make your new Mac exactly the same as your old Mac — passwords, screen layouts, everything! It's seamless. I'm not into computers, but Macs have by now come of age and are kicking botty.