I never claimed that the average person was tech savvy enough to do that. I said that anybody who was even a bit tech savvy would have no problem running Windows.
There are plenty of people who will run to the 'Geek Squad' they second something seems out of whack when they could find a solution on Google that would solve their problem.
Ok, so assuming that most do understand the basics of computer systems. Working with that assumption:
1) Preventative Measures: Windows machines require additional protection software to ensure a smooth operating system. Such software costs money, and in the case of anti-virus definitions, require yearly subscriptions. In addition to virus protection, system utilities for system optimization and file defragmenting are required as, honestly, the system utilities offered with Windows are not nearly as adequate as commercially available software. Thus the cost of the average Windows based system increases depending on the security software purchased. The average cost of All-In-One preventative software is roughly $100 (Norton 360 varies between $79.99 - $134.99) + annual subscriptions.
2) Rescue Measures: If preventative measures fail, then more time (and money) is required in scanning, quarantining and deleting viruses and adware. In some cases physical damage may result from WORMS and other malware, requiring new hardware and data rescue. Not only does this require more money, but hours if not days may be spent in such instances.
3) Additional Non-Preventative Software: As Windows OS does not include multimedia suites for music, movies, photography and web site publication (iLife comes with every Mac and may be purchased for $79), obtaining such software will increase the upfront cost of a comparable system. Discussing productivity suites such as iWork verses Office, and there is a considerable difference in price.
4) Time: Assuming the average user is knowledgeable enough in diagnosing and repairing system issues, is the time spent on such matters worth the upfront financial savings? Personally, if I weren't working in IT (part-time now as I am in grad school), I would rather not spend hours, and sometimes days, fixing and diagnosing system issues that I would not normally encounter on an OS X based system.
5) Overall Ergonomics and Design: There is little debate that under lead Industrial Designer Jonathan Ive that Apple designs more friendly and ergonomically pleasing products. Apple spends a lot of money and time researching the hardware and HID that are factored into computer technology for the everyday and average user to ensure a much more streamlined experience with more eye pleasing designs. The iMac is a great system, running mobile based processors in an all-in-one system that run just as well, if not better, in benchmark tests to comparable Windows desktop hardware. Most users welcome the lack of wires, camera's, clutter with an iMac system, and don't need the power and energy usage of a desktop Windows based system. In this instance, simplicity of design makes a positive impact on every day computer users' lives.
6) Ease of Use: Applications that Mac users take for granted such as Mail, iCal, even the Dock and Exposé (and now "Time Machine") are taken for granted as basic Windows systems do not come with equivalent programs (the only programs that are comparable that spring to mind are Microsoft Office, but that costs $150+). Not only do these programs come standard on Mac OS X machines, they generally are more eye pleasing than their available Windows counterparts and they are generally easier to assimilate to and operate.
7) Mac OS X versus Windows System Upgrades: Through time, most Mac systems outlive and outperform their Windows based counterparts. As I have stated, I have rewritten Leopard in order to lower Leopards system requirements to below 800 MHz in order to install it on an almost decade old eMac. Not only did it run without requiring additional hardware investments (unlike XP to Vista upgrades), it ran better. Benchmark tests demonstrated that a 450 MHz eMac running 10.5.2 ran better than a Windows XP Intel 1.35 GHz system with 1 GB RAM. Granted, the average user will not possess the knowledge to rewrite an OS installation in order for it to be installed on older hardware. However, as most Windows system owners discovered, upgrading from XP or ME to the newest operating system required more RAM and improved graphics cards in order to take advantage of all the available improvements (not to mention a sliding scale in purchase costs ranging from $189-$349 for various Vista packages). Mac OS X came in one package, one cost, $129, and didn't require a different hardware for the average Mac OS X user (PowerPC G4 ~867 MHz users were able to upgrade, however Leopard is able to run on much older and slower hardware).
Both systems have pro's and con's, however this is marginally false advertising that the general public will eat up like mushy mush (sorry, couldn't resist the Alec Baldwin "Hulu" reference). Initial costs of an average Windows system may be less expensive than a Mac OS X based counterpart. Once factoring in additional software costs as well as operating costs over it's reasonable lifetime (as well as time spent on additional Windows operations and possible repairs), the financial (and time) investment of an Apple OS X system is much less than that of a Windows based system.
). Trying to pass this falsehood off as a real mini documentary to draw in customers is complete posh. They could have made the commercial better, and I would have given them kudos for trying if it wasn't for that bit. What a waste.
