Sorry, Andrew, What Microsoft did to Vista and Windows Seven was a series a palliatives — a bunch of bandaids. Its foundations are as insecure as Mac System 7.5 was. Microsoft has beefed up its external protection, but that is unlikely to last. Foundations cannot be made secure after the fact.

The Windows OS, to be secure, needs to be inside a virtual space or have new foundations built up from the bottom. Neither solution is likely to appeal to Microsoft.

The problem with the latter is that it would break all of Microsoft’s applications. It is unfortunate that Microsoft didn’t take advantage of the move to 64 bit processing to solve this security problem. That is short term thinking, because new foundations would be as painful to Microsoft as the move to Mac OSX was to Apple.

You are right about stability. The original Mac OS had cooperative multitasking. This depended on having well behaved applications and most of them were. Steve Wozniak said that the mere presence of Internet Explorer on a Mac made it unstable — whether IE was running or not. Microsoft has had a pattern of sabotaging its competition in deceptive ways which made that competitor look bad.

Mac OS X is very stable. I’ll go a week or two before I runs some diagnostic software which demands a reboot. I can’t remember the last time I crashed the system. Safari crashes every three weeks or so from a bad web page. Flash periodically hangs on a video, I force quit and will run diagnostics which cause me to reboot the system.

What flaw does Snow Leopard have? The vulnerabilities which Anti virus experts such as Mr Miller of Intego exposes at Consecwest are in its un-patched Open Source BSD foundations. Those vulnerabilities never go anywhere. Mac OS X has never has a virus, worm, adware or spyware in the wild. It has had two Trojan horses in the last three years. Otherwise, we only have spam and phishing attacks which could apply to any computer user.

The 64 bit kernel has increased security procedures, but I never heard of any serious mac problems.

@Louis Wheeler,

7, Vista, XP, 2K, NT, are all stable. Stable and secure are different things. I have an old ThinkPad purchased around 1998 and upgraded (clean install) to Windows 2000 in 1999. That computer has never crashed, and never had a virus, and remains the model of stability today. It got a new hard drive about 5-years-ago to cure a noise issue, but is the same WIndows install from 1999 cloned over (Norton Ghost back then, Acronis TrueImage now). It is on the internet, behind a firewall, and has never had antivirus software installed on it. Because that machine (ThinkPad 600E) has the best keyboard I’ve ever had the pleasure to touch it remains my legal drafting machine. It has a Pentium II processor at 300MHz and runs Office 2003 Professional with the .docx compatibility update installed. A ten-year-old OS installation that has never crashed is what I call stable.

The architectural shift in Vista was the driver model that no longer runs at the kernel level, increasing (greatly) stability, not security. Using standard accounts and UAC was another architectural shift making it much harder for a machine to be compromised (security, not stability).

Is Windows 7 as secure as Snow Leopard? I don’t know. Both are flawed, though I tend to be more careful where I click on a Windows system than a Mac. My only malware infection in over 20 years of computing was actually on a Mac running System 7.5 called the “Autostart Worm”. I still don’t run antivirus of any kind on my Mac, though my modern ThinkPad (not always behind the firewall) has AVG Free, which as its name suggests, costs nothing. I don’t click EXE files, don’t unzip unsolicited attachments and don’t visit porn sites. As such, I consider both my PC and Mac to be quite safe.

I also agree with you on pricing. I have never purchased a cheap PC except for a pair of desktops for my first law office. Those cost $300 new back in 2006 and those machines still work fine, both are currently running Vista and I’ve had no issues with either. My current ThinkPad cost the same as a MacBook Pro, and is a very high-quality machine, as is my equally expensive and high-quality MacBook Air. I’ve had many high-quality computers, the vast majority from Apple and IBM/Lenovo. Build quality is about equal, though the current unibody machines are simply gorgeous.

Andrew, Mac’s are more expensive than the average Wintel PC because Apple does not choose to sell products into the lower half of the consumer market.

The point about “The Apple Tax” is not about the expense, itself, but the assumption that Apple is not giving commensurate value for that higher price. That is, that we Mac users are fools for paying more for substandard products. Also, it proclaims that only hardware differences matter.

Usually, the way it is positioned in articles is to compare a Mac to a “White Box” computer or to the lower quality range of HP or Dell computers so long as the major components are the same. This leaves out many intangibles of quality, build finish, style, weight, etc. It leaves out the value of running Mac OS X, too.

Personally, I rarely buy the cheapest item of any product, because I’ve found that paying over 50% more tends to give values which are never in the cheapest goods. And that buying cheap goods is a false economy even when you are looking for a good price. It is called being, “Penny wise and pound foolish.”

I must disagree with you regarding Microsoft. The problem with Vista was that it was rushed to market; It wasn’t ready for prime time. Microsoft was embarrassed by the Longhorn fiasco — six bullion dollars and five years of effort flushed down the tubes.

Microsoft was forced to start over, so it took a clean copy of Windows Server 2003 to build Vista on. Server 2003 is an upgraded version of Windows NT, thus it carries on NT’s internal flaws. Windows NT’s major flaw is that its security was compromised to allow backward compatibility.

There was no architectural shift in Vista. Neither Vista nor Windows Seven are object oriented, multi user, Operating Systems in the way that NeXTstep and Mac OS X are. Windows is a stand alone disk system which is inherently unsuited for the internet.

http://www.rixstep.com/2/20090601,00.shtml
http://www.rixstep.com/2/20090726,00.shtml

There is no equality between the Win7 and Snow Leopard.

You are right that Windows 95 and System 7.5 were equally insecure, because they were stand alone disk systems. That was forgivable, because neither OS was exposed to the Internet.

Windows Seven gives the illusion of stability. If it were stable, it wouldn’t need Anti-virus software. It wouldn’t have fallen prey to the recent “Zero day” virus. Windows remains a catastrophe waiting to happen. It is unclear what Microsoft intends to do about this.

We won’t need to wait long for Snow Leopard to fulfill its promises. I am projecting that the shift to the 64 bit kernel will occur by default before July, That is because 75% of the Intel Mac user base will have upgraded to SL (it is about a third now). And 90% of the Applications will be in 64 bit code. There is little reason to upgrade to the 64 bit kernel before then. Much that is hidden will be reveled when that happens.

@Louis Wheeler,

Louis,

Notice I never once said that Macs were more expensive than PCs, only that they were more expensive in some categories and less expensive in others. You can buy an entry level laptop or desktop cheaper from Dell or HP than you can from Apple and get similar performance. You can buy a high-end workstation cheaper from Apple than from Dell or HP and get similar performance. Usually the price difference is negligible when the hardware is truly equivalent, both in specification and build-quality.

Microsoft is also cutting away its legacy bottlenecks with Vista being the big architecture change, and the complaints against that OS are almost entirely based on the many problems that come with an architecture shift. Apple endured the same complaints to an even larger extent when it abandoned the classic Mac OS and moved to OS X. Microsoft has been here before as well, when it abandoned DOS-based Windows for NT-based Windows with Win2K in businesses and XP two-years-later for consumers.

Snow Leopard brings a lot of promises for the future, but this is now. Now, today, the two platforms are as equal as ever before. Back in the days of Windows 95 and System 7.5 things were pretty equal too, with Apple having the better UI and stability being pretty poor on both sides. Today, Apple has the better UI and stability is pretty good on both sides.

Clearly, it is the best time ever to be a Mac user, but its also the best time ever to be a Windows user. For those of us who use both, well, I guess its twice as good.

Andrew, I agree with most of what you say. The problem with these debates is that Microsoft, and IBM before it, uses a form of propaganda called FUD — Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt — to delude people.
Anyone who would use the Apple Tax argument is beyond reasoning with.

Microsoft spreads lies; it tries to puff up itself while it ignores its flaws. Those flaws were decisions which conferred an immediate benefit. But, those decisions have long term problems attached which are increasingly evident.

Each OS has its niches. Wintel is chasing obsolescence by grasping after its market share. The one-size-fits-all mentality, as a Wintel fan would maintain, does not hold true.

Apple does not try to serve every market; it has been leaving Games and the Enterprise markets alone, but that will slowly change. Apple is steadily improving its hardware and software; it is chasing excellence. Investing in the future is often painful in the short term but confers a long term benefit. Apple has had very long term plans which are only now bearing fruit.

Snow Leopard sheds the compromises which Steve Jobs had to make to bring the, object oriented, NeXTstep Operating System to the Mac. Mac OSX 10.6 has fundamental changes which will take time to reveal. One of the most important change is that Snow lLeopard is sidelining the procedural Carbon API’s in 32 bit code while the rest of the Mac apps migrate to 64 bit. Rather large speed improvements are ahead, as well as a much better applications. The numbers of available applications will be shifting toward the Mac by the middle of next year — as will their speed and effectiveness. Apple developers will be utilizing these new foundations to capture much of the gaming market.

The Mac OS is an acquired taste. Most of us Mac users have a long experience with Microsoft Windows and prefer to pay more to avoid it.

Apple has, since 1997, been removing the deficiencies on its checklist. The last to fall is the price argument. This argument is flawed because it assumes that Mac users do not receive commensurate value for the higher price.

Apple has the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the computer market. This means that Apple creates products and maintains policies which cause people to be loyal. It solves problems up front and creates a trust in its users. It serves fewer people than Wintel, but serves them better. That is worth a few extra dollars.

@David, Someone said focus, so let’s do that:

1. This is a price comparison, not a purchase comparison.

2. It is much cheaper to manufacture the products with certain board-level features built in rather than added on later. That applies to particularly to Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, where chips are cheap now.

3. I agree that Apple should be considering “business” versions of its hardware without certain features, but probably the Web cam would represent the biggest cost savings. Apple, however, chooses to build a consumer product that happens to also work in an office environment, so they give you everything up front. If you find someone else’s product more suited to your needs, even if it’s a Windows PC, so be it. If Apple saw their market being hurt by loading up their products with certain capabilities, they’d change in a heartbeat.

Peace,
Gene

@Gene Steinberg, Andrew already pointed out how ridiculous it would be to factor in the cost of Wi-Fi when looking for a computer that will spend its entire life on a wired network.

Telling me to put a Bluetooth module into any PC I look at because it’s standard equipment in Macs is just as silly. I don’t even know if my Mac’s Bluetooth feature works because I disabled it shortly after I booted it for the first time.

Adding the cost of unnecessary and unwanted features doesn’t make a comparison more fair, it artificially skews it by putting a value on features that the buyer has already decided are worth nothing.

Your position is that its impossible to know what users might need or want so its essential to match up the machines the best you can. But in doing so you’ve taken the position that all users value all the features.

I think what Andrew and I are saying is that your position is not representative of the marketplace. Even within Apple’s own customer base I dare say most people would gladly trade away something Apple provides for something else if Apple offered such a choice.

So while I applaud your attempt to be fair, matching computers feature by feature is probably invalid in some way for every buyer.

@Louis Wheeler,

There are a lot of fanatics on both sides of the platform divide. A few of us, however, are platform agnostic or at least equally efficient on either one. Many people switch platforms every day, and not the “switchers” who dump Windows for a Mac, but the people who use a Mac at home and a PC at work, or perhaps even move from to the other depending on the task. This can even be on the same computer these days, thanks to Boot Camp, Parallels and Fusion.

The point is, anyone who really uses both, a lot, is in a position to say which is better for his or her needs. Some use a Mac and only go into Windows for gaming. Others use a PC for some specialized business or scientific application and a Mac for video or graphics work. I would doubt if many of these users really care when seated at their Mac that some functions are done differently than in Windows, or that the Windows UI isn’t as polished and pretty as the Mac’s.

Right now I’m viewing a website and replying to a comment. Ihappen to be using my PC at the moment since I was just playing Fallout 3. Earlier this evening I was working on a motion to file in court tomorrow and took a break to visit and reply on this very same website, that time, using my Mac. The experience was different because of content on the website, but not altered in any way by using a Mac with Safari compared to a PC with Firefox.

In most mundane tasks, the OS really doesn’t make a difference unless if prevents you from doing something. Linux would make a huge difference to me, as it would prevent me from using working with legal pleadings written in MS Word. Those same documents are identical in the Mac and PC versions of Word, however, and it makes no difference whatsoever if I want to edit one on my Mac or on my PC. The words are the same when I print the document, and regardless of which OS I am using, the amount of work is the same.

The words we use are often interesting. A tax is an addition which has no direct relationship to the value of an item.

The concepts implied in an Apple Tax is:

1. There is no difference between computers.

2. There is no difference between operating systems.

3. If Apple computers cost more, then it can only be because Apple forces an unfair bargain. Hence, Apple cheats its customers.

4. Therefore, Apple buyers are fools who do not understand the nature of computers.

This constitutes a profound bigotry, because it is based on values. Wintel and Mac customers value different things and thus, will pay accordingly.

A reply to this bigotry will be discounted. Apple’s hardware is chosen to satisfy the Mac users needs. It will have qualities which will never appear on a Wintel fans checklist. He will use this as an argument that the Mac User is being ripped off.

The Wintel fan often has no experience with the Mac OS, but he will say that there is no difference between it and Windows. Or he will assert that he is experience, but he finds no particular value in either. Thus, any preference to the Mac OS is derided as irrational, because no reason exists to pay more to get Mac OSX.

Apple confines its self to its niche markets in Graphics, Design, Education and the upper end of the consumer market. Only recently has it been making moves on the Small to Medium sized Business markets. Apple has traditionally had high profit margins and maintains high quarterly profits. It eschews government and big business as well as markets where these are low profit margins. This means that Apple does not care about market share. It will sell a fifth as many computers as HP, but have 2/3’s of HP’s profits.

This proves to the Wintel fan that Apple is ripping off its customers. He cannot see that the high profits are a reward for serving its customers well.

Lastly, The Wintel fan considers an Apple user a fool for valuing different criteria from him. He cannot see that Apple is being rewarded for solving the problems in the Wintel market. That is why Apple is growing at 30+% a year.

The point if that there is no reasoning with a Wintel fanatic, If you told him the benefits which you derive from being a Macintosh user, he would discount them. He would dismiss them as being unnecessary to computing.

Perhaps, they are unnecessary to him, but not to us. There is no accounting for taste. And no reason to argue with the deluded.

@westech,

But is it really competition if a person buys HP model A because it is a closer match to his needs than HP model B? If he buys a Dell, or a Sony, or an Apple instead of an HP then it matters, but HP really doesn’t get too upset if more people buy model A than model B, so long as they both have similar margins, meaning aren’t downgrading to a no-profit netbook.

@Andrew,
Yes, the equipment level should be based on what the customer needs, or thinks he needs. I don’t disagree with you on that. With cars the macho in us sometimes takes over and we buy to impress others and to boost our egos. With computers this is less so, although I really would like to have a 27 inch iMac.

By and large, Apple does very well where they choose to compete. In most cases the difference in price where they do compete is not a major factor. Sometimes they may offer a feature before the competition. I believe that a big factor is the perception of the markets they serve that their quality, ease of use and service and support are better than the competition. I am sure this is not always justified, but back to the automobile analogy I remember GM dissing Toyota’s reputation for quality saying that they could only compete because they had cheap labor. Meanwhile, GM offered tail fins and chrome.

There is a strong tendency in American manufacturing to go for the short term profits. They often regard quality and service as expenses with no return. Once you get a reputation for poor quality and support it’s hard to shake it. Apple has generally taken a longer term view.

BTW, if you are buying a computer, say an HP, at a mass merchandizer the lower cost HP alternatives are there for you to compare. You can become your own competition.

Sleep well. I am off to bed.

@Gene Steinberg,

Thats true, but those Cadillacs, Audis (Volkswagen), Infinities and Lexuses (Lexii?) cost the same as the BMW, and compete fairly well.

I just bought a car in the near-luxury segment and my list included cars from BMW and Mercedes Benz (luxury only) as well as those from full-line companies (Audi, Lexus, Infiniti and Cadillac) and some top-line models from non-luxury names like Ford, Volkswagen and Subaru.

What all had in common was a price between $30K and $35K, compact or mid-sized body, quiet ride and sporty handling. My three favorites were as different in character as cars can possibly be, ranging from 4-door sports car (BMW 328i) to plush cruiser that still moves (Ford Taurus) and jack-of-all-trades (Mercedes-Benz C Class).

Computers are much the same. There isn’t one clear winner in each and every category, and some models are a better value than another. Of the cars I test drove, the as-equipped prices were only separated by about $4000, and the Ford was the most expensive of the lot. Apple is like BMW or Mercedes-Benz. Sometimes they are the most expensive (entry-level laptop), sometimes they are the cheapest (workstation), but usually they are priced very similarly to their competition when equipped the same (Gene’s method).

Where I continue to differ is that I truly believe that the equipment level must be based on the user’s desires. BMW and Mercedes-Benz both charge $1500 to move up from vinyl to leather interiors, while the other cars had leather standard at this price point. To a get a folding seatback in the Mercedes requires a $3000 option package, while most other cars had a folding rear seat as standard.

When it was time to sign the contract and drive the car home, I didn’t exclude the Mercedes because in price range it would come with the vinyl interior and non-folding seat, just as I didn’t automaticaly award the purchase to the Ford because it had so many toys that matching them would have put the others out of my price range. I decided what features I really wanted and what I didn’t care about, looked at models equipped to my needs and ignored the presence of unwanted features on the competition, unless I could get the same model without the unwanted toys.

I bought the Mercedes-Benz C300 even though it and the BMW were the most spartan of the pack. Had I followed your shopping method, I would have had to add expensive options to make a “fair” price comparison. I was buying a car, not leather seats. I wanted a very firm drivers’ seat, and could care less about a panorama roof or voice-controlled audio and nav systems. Those features were available on the C300, but adding them would have raised the price another $5000 or more than I had no desire to spend.

So too when buying a computer, if one model I am interested in has a feature that I don’t want I won’t add it to the other model. When I bought a Mac Mini, did I add an external lightscribe DVDRW because most competing PCs came with one? No, I could care less about lightscribe. When I bought an iMac did I buy the higher-end model withlarger hard drive, faster graphics and CPU? Nope, this was purchased for use by a receptionist, and power, performance and storage were completely unimportant. You compare based on your wants and needs, and anything unwanted should simply be ignored.

@Gene Steinberg,
Amen to that. Focus, focus, focus.

But no company is your friend. I admire the way Apple runs their business, which I summarize by saying that they make great products which people want and therefore they make money.

Just because I admire them doesn’t mean that they don’t make me mad at times.

Want to compare Apple to Microsoft?

@westech, This is what some people fail to understand about Apple. It’s also far more efficient for a company to concentrate on a smaller number of market segments — and it causes fewer headaches too!

As I’ve always said, Apple is NOT your friend. They have chosen to play in sandboxes that keep them profitable, able to build more innovative products for customers. Doing everything for everybody — or trying — can wreak havoc on creativity.

Peace,
Gene

@Gene Steinberg,
Yes, but twenty years ago the alternatives were Lincoln, BMW and Mercedes.

Today’s market appears to have four major segments (not counting servers and super computers)

Professional use, eg graphic editing;
High end desktops and lap tops;
Low end desktops and lap tops;
And net books.

Apple concentrates on the first two, and the market says, as it did (does?) with the Cadillac, give a more luxurious ride.

You don’t have to be all things to all people to succeed.