Fuzzy tactics aren't helping the Mac community

David...again, good lookin' out man. I told ya it was gonna be ugly when you started down this path...but my all means, keep going.

RoughlyDrafted is a bit of a propaganda site folks...a lot of 'MacPravda' action goin' on over there...and Daniel does NOT like to be corrected, and finds it very difficult to state this without ad hominem attacks and a bit of well-poisoning. You've been warned :)

That said, yes Daniel, again you've written a piece that is factually twisted, likely due to your borderline irrational Apple devotion. You should probably fix the *massive* skew and chalk it up as "one to grow on".

-K

David,
Glad you liked the "my OS is better than your OS" parody. Unfortunately I didn't come up with it myself - I nicked it from James O'Neill's post at http://blogs.technet.com/jamesone/archive/2006/04/04/424169.aspx .

If only I was that witty...

Mark

Daniel: You're giving yourself just enough rope to hang your argument.

Stop before it's too late, because you're not helping yourself.

@Stephen Antonucci: I'm not disputing there was some hardware out already that would run it, but when Mac OS X shipped the bar was set quite high. For instance, my first generation PowerBook G4 shipped with Mac OS X installed, although not default, and it was barely capable of running it.

Nevertheless, a lot of people did pay full retail for 10.0. I included that in my later exact numbers comment. I'm mostly objecting to the people who are asserting that 10.0 and 10.1 were both $130.

Huh? I think it's time for a little "Monkey Boy!"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tXF5Bp4IELs

Apple by default!

Daniel: Your article's inaccurate because you fail to factor in the amounts Mac users spend on .mac, disk utilities, drive repair, screen cleaners, whatever. I could similarly produce a figure for you on how much that market is worth, and it would have exactly the same validity as what you claim in comment #23. The thing is, Mac users don't *have* to buy those things, just as Windows users don't *have* to buy them either.

I say that as a ten-year-long Windows user who has paid for pretty much every version of Windows that's been released, sometimes twice. In those ten years I have never paid a penny for anti-virus, anti-spyware or firewall software, yet your article claims I've spent $230.

It could be that, as you say, you're the one doing accurate research and I'm just an uninformed zealot. After all, I only have my bank statements and credit card receipts to back me up. I welcome you to come and put the case to the Inland Revenue on my behalf.

Oh, and one last question: if Mac owners never spend anything on anti-virus, why are there at least six commercial anti-virus products for OS X, including one from Apple itself? Who's buying them?

"Facts like Gartner's reporting that AntiVirus grew to a $4 Billion industry in 2005 - that suggests that somebody is, indeed, buying AntiVirus software."

Fair enough, but Gartner also estimates that 870 million PCs are currently installed.

http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=142536

If the worldwide antivirus total software revenue totaled $4 billion in 2005, the yearly cost amounts to about $5 per computer.

"Consumer Reports says PC users paid $9 Billion more…"

OK then, a whooping $13 billion spend in antivirus software and computer repairs due to damage inflicted by viruses and spyware vs. the installed base of 870 million PCs. The cost per computer is about 15 bucks.

I'm concerned about the attacks on my article that suggest that I presented inaccurate information to create a sensationalism.

Commenters are quick to call me a liar simply because the very real issue I presented is difficult for them to fathom.

Since you called my article "wholly inaccurate and misleading," you might want to consider some facts:

Facts like Gartner's reporting that AntiVirus grew to a $4 Billion industry in 2005 - that suggests that somebody is, indeed, buying AntiVirus software. Gartner's report says half that figure is Enterprise, and half is home users.

http://www.gartner.com/press_releases/asset_154006_11.html

Consumer Reports says PC users paid $9 Billion more "for computer repairs and parts due to damage inflicted by viruses and spyware." That doesn't count people who gave up on their PC and bought a new one.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2005/08/a_billiondollar_boondoggle.html

If everyone is just taking their PCs to their neighbor or poking around on them themselves, how did consumers manage to spend well over $11 Billion on Windows' virus & spyware problems?

Perhaps my article was informed and accurate, and your quick attempt at sensationalism and breeding contempt for intelligent discussion was the real example of uninformed zealotry that you decry in your blog?

- Dan, RDM

Paul Ingram: Good point, and one that raises what I think is one of the biggest arguments in Windows's favour. OS X version upgrades are not only more frequent but more necessary than those of Windows. It's pretty common that within six months of a new OS X release, the majority of new software will require that version. Whereas the vast majority of Windows software will still run on Windows 2000, which is seven years old. (The upcoming version of Office is the first that doesn't, but it will run on XP, which will be five or six years old when Office 12 is released)

The main reason for this is that Apple doesn't make the new versions of its APIs available for older OS releases, whereas MS does, and for free - for example, DirectX and .NET Framework.

Now, before I come across as being a complete Windows fanboy, I think there's a good reason for Apple doing things this way, which is that the OS version number tells you pretty much everything about the OS's components. With Windows, it's not so simple. (But it's definitely cheaper.)

Also, to Apple's credit, with each new release of OS X comes a slew of new features - I don't think you could compare each point release of OS X with each major Windows release in terms of differences, but OS X has definitely come a hell of a lot further in the same timeframe. So requiring more upgrades to keep up with OS X software is more understandable, and you're getting plenty of bang for your buck.

In summary: You'll need to upgrade to Leopard long before you need to upgrade to Vista. Some people prefer things this way, others don't, on either platform.

Leland makes a good point - perhaps a better one than he realizes. When I needed a WinXP/SP2 CD for BootCamp I first turned to Microsoft since I already own a full version of WinXP as well as an upgrade version and only one of them was then in use. I was told by the service rep that Microsoft doesn't make WinXP/SP2 CDs available to previous XP owners at any kind of discount. I've since been told by several people that the tech was mistaken. Who was correct isn't important at this point, at least for me.

Had I been a simply clueless computer user I'd have walked into the local computer or office store and paid full price for yet another copy of WinXP. Had I been shady I'd figure Microsoft already had my money for a copy of Windows I wasn't using any longer and simply downloaded a copy and serial number to go with it. Had I been somewhat savvy I'd have checked popular online vendors such as Amazon for the best price. But since I shade into the computer geek I looked to the grey market and bought an OEM version for $70.

Having read the article that spawned this discussion I have to agree the evidence is shaky but the argument itself, or at least part of it, shouldn't be ignored. The cost of owning a computer goes beyond the initial purchase price and it can be argued that when (potential) extras are added in an inexpensive PC is less of a bargain than first thought and the expensive Mac isn't as costly in comparison after all.

Many point out that there are free alternatives to costly commercial anti-virus, anti-malware, and firewall software. And that's true. But remember, there is a continuum of experience from newbie to geekly and where one resides on that continuum will, in part, determine the cost. For me the cost is 0 and it's all legal. For my neighbor the cost is more substantial because he bought it all at Staples.