What is the monetary value of using OS X vs Windows?

[daveseibert]

After the announcement of the MacBook Air, all anyone seems to do is compare it to other ultra-portables, or at least other thin laptops (if you're the type to exclude the MBA from the ultra-portable category).

But, one thing that is not often mentioned in the lists of specs is what is the monetary value of using OS X vs XP/Vista. That is, how much more are you willing to pay to be using OS X?

I, for example, really feel annoyed by Vista, but that's just after using it for less than five hours with boot camp. Time will tell whether it gets more or less annoying as time goes on. At the moment though, the MBA premium seems worth it, since it's a light-ish computer with OS X.

But, that's just my preference. What does everyone else think?

 

[heatmiser]

Good question. It's hard to say. It's not as simple as deducting the cost of the computer from that of an equally specced Windows computer, since the Apple can run both OSes. I'm not sure what the answer is. I just know I'd rather use OS X than Vista, and that I left XP for Tiger because I wanted a nicer gui.

 

[kuwisdelu]

I pointed that out in the other threads about MacBook Air, but no one really seemed to notice.

I, for one, would definitely go for an Apple computer with OS X over an equally teched Windows machine any day, even if the Apple computer is more expensive. I can't go back to Windows anymore. I need OS X now. It's like an addiction. And the more I use it, the more I want to use it even more.

 

[bacaramac]

I agree, OSX is a must for me. The only time I log into boot camp is when I have to run software that doesn't support MAC. Like AnyDVD, etc.

 

[GoCubsGo]

It is difficult to measure the true value of using OSX over windows. After comparing the price you have to then decide what your time is worth. How much time are you spending on getting Vista or any MS OS to work properly? How much more time is consumed by maintaining the OS? What is all of that worth and that may give you some indication of monetary value.

Is it worth having a MBA with OSX versus any ultra-portable? Yes at least for me. I have been freed of having to make changes to windows to let it work. I am a fan of windows, I have had great luck with it and only opted to switch when I needed a notebook. Once I got the notebook it was clear to me that I would buy a desktop once I was done with grad school (the reason I got the notebook). For me the value of OSX over windows is time.

 

[Airforce]

I've been using OS X since the x86 project came out. I then bought a Macbook in late 2006. I still use XP just as much at work as well as Vista on my desktop. I have no need to continue to use OS X except when on the Macbook. It has zero monetary value for me over XP or Vista.



-----
The only thing I still value over my XP/Vista systems would be iLife, but even that isn't worth it anymore. I wouldn't pay a premium for Apple hardware on my next purchase of a laptop.

I am probably a rare case, but the MB Air seems a waste of money when you can get the same hardware for much cheaper. 2 lbs never broke anyone's back.

 

[pjrobertson]

I haven't used Vista that much, but would have to say that OS X Leopard is definitely better than XP (although I'm still not 100% happy with it, lets hope the issues get fixed in 10.5.2)

Every time I boot into Windows (bootcamp) it just reminds me of how annoying Windows is!

 

[saltyzoo]

$42.68 + $0.37 per hour of use.

 

[clevin]

another OSX vs. Windows?
I would pay OSX for $60, Windows Vista for $80. and thats about it. $20 difference is for labor causes since M$ actually wrote all the codes, while Apple didn't.

 

[killerrobot]

Yes, another OS X vs Windows...

OS X/ XP / Vista have never earned me any money in my life - so I can't imagine I would ever place a monetary value on them in order to use one over the other.

 

[CashGap]

another OSX vs. Windows?
I would pay OSX for $60, Windows Vista for $80. and thats about it. $20 difference if for labor causes since M$ actually wrote all the codes, while Apple didn't.

By that logic, a 2' x 3' Rembrandt is worth 1/2 as much as a Farrah poster...

 

[clevin]

i don't get these type of analogue, care to make it easier to understand?

 

[speakerwizard]

i hate using vista, osx to me is priceless (figuratively) but i would pay a lot more to have the privilege to use it.

 

[CashGap]

i don't get these type of analogue, care to make it easier to understand?

Sorry, thought your Windows/OS X valuation was based on what it cost each company to develop them. I'd never heard anyone seriously suggest that before. It would indicate, for example, that delays and cost overruns actually improve the value to the customer.

Perhaps a better analogy would be that if Rembrandt paid $5 for canvas, $5 for paint and spent one week on a painting, my painting would be worth twice as much if I used the same materials and spent two weeks on the painting.

If you'd see one of my paintings, you'd abandon cost-based valuation fallacies!

 

[apattee]

can't be much.

 

[queshy]

I think the answer depends on the person. There are two extremes: Mr. X who doesn't care at all about the OS and just likes the hardware (so to him the value is $0) and then Mrs. Y who loves the OS but hates the hardware and is willing to pay a lot of extra money to get the OS.

To me, it's a lot. Vista is just frustrating. I'm a long time XP user (before I switched to Mac), and some of the changes in vista just make no sense. Also, I work at a computer store, and every time a customer asks for the specs of the computer, doing the equivalent of "apple --> about this mac" is sooo annoying in Vista, lol. It's just everything is more complicated and annoying to do in Vista. But that's just me.

 

[clevin]

Sorry, thought your Windows/OS X valuation was based on what it cost each company to develop them.

well, I don't see the problem, since they both only deserve $60, I give tips to honest hard working company.

To be honest, Vista give users more compatibility for more softwares/hardwares
OSX is more secure, better UI design.

Its only a personal preference problem, nobody can definitively say OSX is better for most people.

 

[kuwisdelu]

well, I don't see the problem, since they both only deserve $60, I give tips to honest hard working company.

To be honest, Vista give users more compatibility for more softwares/hardwares
OSX is more secure, better UI design.

Its only a personal preference problem, nobody can definitively say OSX is better for most people.

You're right, no one can definitively say either is better for "most" people. Nor can we place a legitimate monetary value on either OS. But I'm pretty sure the original question is how much is either OS worth to *us*.

From your answer, I'm guessing you don't really care with OS you use, and hardware matters more to you.

As you can see from my original answer, I'm different.

Like I said, I can't use Windows anymore. It's just a terrible experience for me--especially now, having used OS X. I'm an XP user and have barely used Vista, but even XP is infuriating each time I'm forced to use it. It's just contrary to how I work now. All the little things that OS X gives me to speed up my work process just aren't there in Windows. If given the choice between a Windows machine with great hardware and a Mac machine with crappy hardware, I'd have to take the Mac, because it'd still be better. For me, at least. On the Windows, my work would probably decrease four fold. First I'd work at half the pace simply because it's Windows, and I'd have to deal with keeping up the OS and using the "slow" ways of doing things I could easily do on my Mac. Second, I'd work at another half of that pace because I'd take that much time lamenting my long-lost OS X.

Maybe I'm exaggerating a little. But now that I've used OS X, I wouldn't be able to stand a Windows machine. I'm not in the market for an ultraportable, so the MacBook Air isn't worth it to me right now--but neither is any other ultraportable. If I *were* in the market for an ultraportable, I'd *have* to get the MacBook Air, even if it were twice as much as the equally-powerful competition, just because I wouldn't make that sacrifice of using Windows just to save some money. That's how I see it.

It's like buying expensive clothes clothes that look good, are comfortable, and will last FOREVER, over buying cheap clothes that are scratchy, ugly, and fall apart after a few months of wear. For me, anyway.

 

[mckyvlle]

Well said!

My computing background before I switched consists largely of DOS/Windows up till XP and various flavours of Linux. Getting the Mac was a leap of faith for me, and did cause quite a bit of anxiety. Now though, using the Mac is like the most natural thing to do. Like a good book, it feels warm and fuzzy like it belongs in my head. After using the Mac, having to use XP/Vista for the odd task is like having my nerves grated! Linux, especially (K)Ubuntu manages to be bearable by being pretty, though quite frustrating if drivers aren't present.

I would say this though:
You use Windows because the employer wants you to; You use a Mac because you want to; and Linux is a compromise if the employer won't let you have a Mac, and you don't want Windows.

Cheers!

You're right, no one can definitively say either is better for "most" people. Nor can we place a legitimate monetary value on either OS. But I'm pretty sure the original question is how much is either OS worth to *us*.

From your answer, I'm guessing you don't really care with OS you use, and hardware matters more to you.

As you can see from my original answer, I'm different.

Like I said, I can't use Windows anymore. It's just a terrible experience for me--especially now, having used OS X. I'm an XP user and have barely used Vista, but even XP is infuriating each time I'm forced to use it. It's just contrary to how I work now. All the little things that OS X gives me to speed up my work process just aren't there in Windows. If given the choice between a Windows machine with great hardware and a Mac machine with crappy hardware, I'd have to take the Mac, because it'd still be better. For me, at least. On the Windows, my work would probably decrease four fold. First I'd work at half the pace simply because it's Windows, and I'd have to deal with keeping up the OS and using the "slow" ways of doing things I could easily do on my Mac. Second, I'd work at another half of that pace because I'd take that much time lamenting my long-lost OS X.

Maybe I'm exaggerating a little. But now that I've used OS X, I wouldn't be able to stand a Windows machine. I'm not in the market for an ultraportable, so the MacBook Air isn't worth it to me right now--but neither is any other ultraportable. If I *were* in the market for an ultraportable, I'd *have* to get the MacBook Air, even if it were twice as much as the equally-powerful competition, just because I wouldn't make that sacrifice of using Windows just to save some money. That's how I see it.

It's like buying expensive clothes clothes that look good, are comfortable, and will last FOREVER, over buying cheap clothes that are scratchy, ugly, and fall apart after a few months of wear. For me, anyway.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Well said!

My computing background before I switched consists largely of DOS/Windows up till XP and various flavours of Linux. Getting the Mac was a leap of faith for me, and did cause quite a bit of anxiety. Now though, using the Mac is like the most natural thing to do. Like a good book, it feels warm and fuzzy like it belongs in my head. After using the Mac, having to use XP/Vista for the odd task is like having my nerves grated! Linux, especially (K)Ubuntu manages to be bearable by being pretty, though quite frustrating if drivers aren't present.

I would say this though:
You use Windows because the employer wants you to; You use a Mac because you want to; and Linux is a compromise if the employer won't let you have a Mac, and you don't want Windows.

Cheers!

Ah, you're forgetting the other great use of Linux.

When big physics labs (CERN and Fermilab) realizes that Windows is pretty terrible for high-energy physics analysis, but realize they can't count on shipping a copy of OS X to all of the physicists involved in their experiments across the globe...so they invent Scientific Linux (based off Red Hat in case anyone's interested) instead!

Also, if you have an old bloated PC that *could* still be useful if it just didn't have Windows on it...

Granted, there must be *some* people who really don't mind Windows after using and getting used to OS X (after all, a few of them have posted here), and it really may be a preference thing sometimes. But I just can't deal with Windows anymore outside the one or two necessary programs not there for OS X.

 

[mckyvlle]

Ah, yes! Accept my apologies! Linux really is good for the server type stuff too. And also cluster computing, like in Beowulf clusters.

Linux, and to a certain extent Windows, is much more "tweakable" than Mac OS X. For people who enjoy changing settings and tweaking stuff, Linux may be more preferable to them than Mac OS X. Though now I want a machine that works well right out of the box, and it seems that a Mac is the most usable on its default unmodified settings than either Windows or Linux.

Ah, you're forgetting the other great use of Linux.

When big physics labs (CERN and Fermilab) realizes that Windows is pretty terrible for high-energy physics analysis, but realize they can't count on shipping a copy of OS X to all of the physicists involved in their experiments across the globe...so they invent Scientific Linux (based off Red Hat in case anyone's interested) instead!

Also, if you have an old bloated PC that *could* still be useful if it just didn't have Windows on it...

Granted, there must be *some* people who really don't mind Windows after using and getting used to OS X (after all, a few of them have posted here), and it really may be a preference thing sometimes. But I just can't deal with Windows anymore outside the one or two necessary programs not there for OS X.

 

[Consultant]

Some examples:

Speed
Windows runs slower. Laptop running windows with virus protection etc = 85% speed of same laptop running OS X. Benchmarked with Geekbench.

Power Efficiency
Laptops running OS X runs longer than laptops running windows.

Sleep / Hibernate
Laptops running Windows frequently have problems sleeping or hibernating (many users of windows laptop wait for minutes to shut down and wait to start their computer every time they move their laptop from location to location).

Keyboard shortcuts
OS X uses the command key which is ergonomically better than the ctrl key for shortcuts (you have to move your whole hand to use the ctrl key, while command key is easy and faster to reach). In addition, if you know what you are doing in both systems, you would know that users can work much faster in OS X due to superior keyboard shortcuts.