"Consultant", you are wrong on a large number of points. Where should I begin?
If your time is worthless, then it might make sense. However, on the same machine, running either OS X or Windows. Windows performance is about 85% speed of the mac, benchmarked by Geekbench (available for OS X, Windows, Linux, Solaris).
http://primatelabs.ca/geekbench/
You are wasting your money with Windows. If you have the same processor as a Mac, then you are getting 85% speed
So you're using one synthetic benchmark is proof? Thats hilarious. What about actual real world performance? Games and other things all perform better under Windows. Applications like Photoshop and Pro Tools are statistically the same on both platforms.
in addition windows is extremely inefficient in many other ways, not to mention that windows slows down over time even with minimal program installs. OS X maintains its speed for way longer than Windows.
Completely false. I've been using Windows since the 3.0 days and Windows will only "slow down" if you install and uninstall a lot of applications without running any kind of maintenance. The same is true for OS X. Even if you use AppDelete or AppZapper, files get left behind and start to clutter things up in OS X. Only install what you need and run maintenance applications and BOTH operating systems will run at "full speed" for as long as you need them to.
Have you tried to connect to an encrypted wireless network on windows?
Yeah, in both Vista and XP you just right click the wireless connection icon and click "view available wireless networks" or the bubble that pops up that says "wireless networks are available". Then you select the network from the list and click connect. If the network is encrypted you type in the password twice in the box that pops up. Simple.
Have you ever thought why you have to click "Start" to shut down in Windows?
Oh please, thats just stupid
Do you realize how childish it is to bring that up? Clicking Start to shut down the computer isn't nearly as bad as say.. oh, having to manually quit nearly every application rather than just closing the window to exit out of it. Besides, why do I have to click Start to shut the system down when I can press the power button and it will start the shut down sequence?
Just because the PERCEIVED upfront cost is higher, doesn't mean the cost of ownership is higher. In fact, cost of ownership is actually LOWER with Macs, not counting the time it will take to download / install drivers, trouble shoot, research extra software such as virus scan, spyware scan, defragging, and other unsuccessful attempts to prevent the inevitable slow down of windows.
The cost of ownership with a Mac is lower? Are you kidding me? Have you seen all of the applications that try to squeeze $5, $10, $15, $20, etc. out of you for no real reason? When the same app would be free under Windows and probably offer more functionality, as well as having more to choose from?
Let's not get started on out of warranty repairs either. Let's say your optical drive dies out of warranty. Even if you replace it yourself, you're still looking at at $200-$250 repair. A Windows notebook would be a simple $50 swap. Plus, with most Windows notebooks, you remove a single screw to replace it. With a Mac you have to tear the system apart.
Troubleshoot what? In the 17 years I've been using Windows, I never had to "troubleshoot" any more problems than I've had with OS X in the 10 months I've owned a Mac.
Extra software? Such as all the utilities you need to purchase for OS X, like outbound firewalls and such?
Drivers? Why do I have to find those? Why can't I go to the manufacturer's site and get them?
Defragging? Well, thats something you just simply start and walk away from the computer while it does it. At least theres the option. Not like in OS X. I know I once experienced a message telling me "system files could not be moved, please reinstall OS X". This was when I was trying to setup a Boot Camp partition for a friend.
Anti-virus and Spyware? I have *never* had a virus or spyware installed. It's called "not browsing the backwaters of the internet". You don't go to shady sites and install suspicious software the same way you don't drive around Compton flashing rival gang signs. It's that simple. You're more likely to get a "virus" from a cheating spouse (60% of all women and 70% of all men cheat in a marriage) than you are to get one in Windows.
And once again, Windows and OS X are just as likely to "slow down" if you treat them the same way. Run normal maintenance applications on both, don't install and uninstall a bunch of junk you don't need and both will run smooth and fast for as long as you need them to.
Why don't you compare a 7 year old Mac laptop with a 7 year old Windows laptop??? That would be a fair comparison. Oh, that's right, 7 year old Windows laptops are usually sitting in the landfill right now.
Well, if you look back 7 years at Apple notebooks, you'd have the G3 iBooks that were famous for motherboard failures. So they'd be sitting right along with those Windows laptops in the landfill as well.
Note XP 32bit can only access 2gb of ram, 3gb with a workaround. Mac OS 32bit can access all 4gb of ram on all compatible logic boards, no need to use the 64 bit version of windows which lack drivers big time.
Again, completely FALSE. 32-bit versions of Windows (Vista and XP) support 3.3GB of memory, depending on chipset. Some people get up to 3.5, some are stuck at 2.8 or just 3GB. There is a registry hack that will allow 4GB in the 32-bit environment. For some people it works great, others it does not.
I'll address the driver nonsense next.
If you put in 4gb of RAM in a Windows machine, YOU HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR A LESS USABLE SYSTEM which lacks drivers (and windows, especially Vista, cannot live without drivers which are mostly built in to Mac OS).
Every major hardware manufacturer has drivers for 64-bit Windows. As the rule goes, if you buy GOOD hardware then you get GOOD support. You would be VERY hard pressed to find a piece of hardware from a good manufacturer that does NOT have drivers for Vista 64-bit. I mean, some obscure USB to Parallel port device might not have 64-bit Windows drivers. But Creative, Leadtek, nVidia, AMD/ATI, Asus, etc. etc. etc. all support 64-bit Windows. You could, essentially, go to newegg and build a computer out of random parts and you would not come across a single component from a well known manufacturer that is not supported under 64-bit Windows.
In fact, the ONLY major player in the market right now that DOES NOT support 64-bit Windows is APPLE. Surprising, isn't it?
Why do you make drivers sound like such a bad thing? I suppose if you have no experience with Windows and have not seen just how much updated drivers can improve hardware. I mean, Apple almost never updates their drivers to improve functionality. I remember back in the day, I had a GeForce 2 MX. When nVidia released the "1080" drivers, my frame-rates in everything literally doubled. Not to mention I've had drivers that lowered CPU use, or improved video decoding and encoding quality for the TV tuner I used in my desktop. Anybody who has had a Chaintech AV-710 soundcard can tell you that the drivers were tuned and tweaked for the audiophile market and made it simple to get bit-perfect and high resolution audio output from any source, instead of the massive amounts of tweaking people were doing before.
Having drivers get improved and released regularly is a GOOD THING. It is a BAD thing to be at the mercy of Apple and hope that they decide to release updates through OS updates. With manufacturer updates, you can get support for old operating systems. With Apple, the support generally stops as soon as the point revisions stop.
Yes, Macs are designed to multi-task. Even old Macs CAN run MULTIPLE apps with dozen documents / pages open at the time. No slowing down switching back and forth.
Windows have a hard time handling more than a few things at the same time (well now faster processors compensates for it, but try switching back and forth between photoshop with dozens of 50mb pictures, word, excel, web browser with dozens of tabs, email with twenty thousand messages, music player with a few hundred gigs of music in Windows), thus the NEED for windows to hide other programs and documents. It's not a feature.
You really do not know what you are talking about, do you?
Both OS X and Windows have pre-emptive multi-tasking. Both multi-task in the same exact way. The funny thing is, I used to have a Celeron 1.1GHz system with 256MB of RAM on Windows XP. I'd have my TV tuner software running to watch TV, multiple browser windows (this was before tabbed browsing), multiple IM programs as well as multiple IMs, and other things going. I never noticed any "slow down". When I went up to an Athlon XP 2800+, 512MB, XP, and that same TV tuner, I did all of the same things plus more and never noticed slowdown. I finally went up to a Turion64 2GHz, Windows MCE 2005, 1GB of memory, and a different TV tuner. While watching TV, my CPU use was around 20% and I did as many other things as I pleased without a single hitch.
Now I have a C2D at 2GHz, 2GB of RAM, XP, etc. I regularly have a browser window open with multiple tabs, multiple IM clients with many IMs, etc. open and I can switch back and forth between all of them and a game like UT3 or HL2 Episode 2 without any kind of "slowdown". Everything is "instant".
So please quit making things up. Even the most diehard Mac fans here know that you are really just lying.
The truly funny thing about your comment, however, is that you say that "even old Macs can run multiple apps". Before OS X, Mac OS had co-operative multi-tasking. Essentially, the application that was "in focus" received all of the resources and the background applications got nothing.
Windows moved passed that with Windows 95.
About the cost, initial cost may be cheaper, but it actually cost more overall to own pcs because you have to replace them more often. That's not counting time spent troubleshooting windows.
Again, what trouble shooting? I have honestly had more trouble with OS X in the last 10 months than I had with Windows in 17 years. I'm on my 4th install of Leopard due to system instability, and I had to reinstall Tiger a couple of times too. Ironically, Windows on the same system is ROCK SOLID. It has survived all of the Mac OS reinstalls and it runs more stable than I've ever seen a Mac with just Mac OS X running. I certainly don't have hardware issues. It all boils down to software issues with OS X.
Replace PCs more often? A PC will happily last just about as long as you want it to. But the question is, why use one so long? You can generally get something twice as fast as a Mac for nearly half the cost. So you go with that cheaper and faster system, then in 2 or 3 years you buy another. In that time span you spent as much on 2 systems as a Mac owner spent on 1 and your system has been much faster that entire time.
