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.
I had an HP Pavillion dv6000 (still do actually, though I rarely use it now). I never paid for any preventative anti-virus software. There are plenty of capable free programs online. I also never paid for a yearly subscription. I did pay a $20 one time fee for a system optimization program.
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.
Malwarebytes is plenty capable of doing all of that at absolutely no cost. Most cases you can wipe your computer clean in less than an hour. I have no clue what you are working on that takes hours or even days.
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.
Open Office can be had for free, and there are many ways (including student discounts) to pay very reasonable prices for Office.
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 spent hours, and sometimes days, fixing and diagnosing system issues that I would not normally encounter on an OS X based system.
This is so ridiculous. Anybody who is capable of diagnosing and repairing these system issues (I understand, that is not everybody) would never get themselves into a problem that would take hours or days to fix.
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 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 use positive impact on every day computer users' lives.
I agree with this point, though I believe it to be almost completely function over form.
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.
Now it seems like we are straying away from the discussion we were having. I do not believe that I ever claimed that I prefered Windows and its applications to OSX.
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.
XP to Vista would be a completely optional upgrade. Including an expense there is not necessary.
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, the financial investment of an Apple OS X system is much less than that of a Windows based system.
It is not false. You can, and many people do, buy a cheap PC and use it for daily functions such as web surfing, email, storing photos/media for a much cheaper price than you can a Mac. To say otherwise just shows that you are out of touch. A $600 laptop is perfectly capable of doing anything the "average" consumer needs. Even if you charged them $150 for Office and $100 for preventative software, then tag on another $100 for repair you are under the cost of a MB.
And those are very generous numbers. We choose Mac because they make great products, higher quality products. Not because we are trying to save money.
