ONE users TCO cost analysis Win vs Mac
Jim Polaski
a credible effort, although I'm sure the Win Nuts will find objection.
http://securityawareness.blogspot.com/2005/09/mad-as-hell-finale-recommen
dations-and.html
have at it boys and girls.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Wayne Stuart
> Down load his SS TCO analysis and have a look. He appears to have done
> a credible effort, although I'm sure the Win Nuts will find objection.
>
> http://securityawareness.blogspot.com/2005/09/mad-as-hell-finale-recommen
> dations-and.html
>
> have at it boys and girls.
Nice toy.
Having a bit of a play, and the places which will get attention are all
pretty obvious...
* Premium priced Macs vs build it yourself Wintel.
* Time per hour set to zero, because tinkering with a PC is a hobby
* Free versions of AV software etc
* "My PC has never crashed"
* Linux is free
* Updates happen in the background or off peak
Apply even some of these, and those TCO figures can suddenly favour the
PC. Sometimes heavily.
One issue he could have added though, is after the 3 years, how much
will you get for your old hardware? Advantage Mac on that one me
thinks.
But anyway, rest assured the 'Win nuts' and 'Maccies' alike, can tinker
with this to make it prove anything they want it to. Therefore, it
"proves" nothing.
But just to show I'm not biased, if I put figures in I think would be
relevant to me, the TCO of my Mac is waaaay higher than if I had a PC.
But it still doesn't matter, because there are aspects of Mac ownership
that you can't summerise into $. That's something you either 'get', or
- like the 'Win nuts' - you don't.
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Timberwoof
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
>
> > Down load his SS TCO analysis and have a look. He appears to have done
> > a credible effort, although I'm sure the Win Nuts will find objection.
> >
> > http://securityawareness.blogspot.com/2005/09/mad-as-hell-finale-recommen
> > dations-and.html
> >
> > have at it boys and girls.
>
> Nice toy.
>
> Having a bit of a play, and the places which will get attention are all
> pretty obvious...
>
> * Premium priced Macs vs build it yourself Wintel.
> * Time per hour set to zero, because tinkering with a PC is a hobby
> * Free versions of AV software etc
> * "My PC has never crashed"
> * Linux is free
> * Updates happen in the background or off peak
>
> Apply even some of these, and those TCO figures can suddenly favour the
> PC. Sometimes heavily.
TCO for a hobbyist machine is one thing. And you can have whatever hobbyist
machine you want. No, really. I'm a Mac user and fanatic. Here it is again: you
can have whatever hobbyist machine you want.
Now run the numbers again for a corporate environment where time per hour is,
oh, $75 and you have to deal with nontechnical users who make their computers
crash.
> One issue he could have added though, is after the 3 years, how much
> will you get for your old hardware? Advantage Mac on that one me
> thinks.
UNless you decide to buy a palletload of old Dells for $1200 like I did. }: )
> But anyway, rest assured the 'Win nuts' and 'Maccies' alike, can tinker
> with this to make it prove anything they want it to. Therefore, it
> "proves" nothing.
No, in the absence of agreed-upon assumptions, it proves nothing. Well, I agree
with your assumptions for a hobbyist machine, but that's not a real TCO
calculation unless "personal enjoyment" comes out of it.
> But just to show I'm not biased, if I put figures in I think would be
> relevant to me, the TCO of my Mac is waaaay higher than if I had a PC.
Publish them, please.
> But it still doesn't matter, because there are aspects of Mac ownership
> that you can't summerise
Summarize. It has nothing to do with the hot season. (Don't get this wrong in a
corporate report. ;-)
> into $. That's something you either 'get', or
> - like the 'Win nuts' - you don't.
Yep.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Wayne Stuart
> In article <1h3o7u7.tkjlhbzn9gv0N%m...@privacy.net>,
> m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
>
> > Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Down load his SS TCO analysis and have a look. He appears to have done
> > > a credible effort, although I'm sure the Win Nuts will find objection.
> > >
> > > http://securityawareness.blogspot.com/2005/09/mad-as-hell-finale-recommen
> > > dations-and.html
> > >
> > > have at it boys and girls.
> >
> > Nice toy.
> >
> > Having a bit of a play, and the places which will get attention are all
> > pretty obvious...
> >
> > * Premium priced Macs vs build it yourself Wintel.
> > * Time per hour set to zero, because tinkering with a PC is a hobby
> > * Free versions of AV software etc
> > * "My PC has never crashed"
> > * Linux is free
> > * Updates happen in the background or off peak
> >
> > Apply even some of these, and those TCO figures can suddenly favour the
> > PC. Sometimes heavily.
>
> TCO for a hobbyist machine is one thing. And you can have whatever
> hobbyist machine you want. No, really. I'm a Mac user and fanatic. Here it
> is again: you can have whatever hobbyist machine you want.
For the world in general, yes, but if you're expecting feedback here, I
think it's safe to say, the Wintel population of a group such as this,
will be more likey to be the kind of person that will have built their
own box, and enjoyed doing so. By all means, point all the Average Joes
there, but don't expect any validation here.
> Now run the numbers again for a corporate environment where time per hour is,
> oh, $75 and you have to deal with nontechnical users who make their computers
> crash.
Possibly. But at least the cost of a PC network can be spread more
evenly across those 3 years, as opposed to needing to find the budget
for more expensive hardware all in one go. A minor point, so no need to
shoot it down too vigourously. ;)
> > One issue he could have added though, is after the 3 years, how much
> > will you get for your old hardware? Advantage Mac on that one me
> > thinks.
>
> UNless you decide to buy a palletload of old Dells for $1200 like I did. }: )
>
> > But anyway, rest assured the 'Win nuts' and 'Maccies' alike, can tinker
> > with this to make it prove anything they want it to. Therefore, it
> > "proves" nothing.
>
> No, in the absence of agreed-upon assumptions, it proves nothing. Well, I
> agree with your assumptions for a hobbyist machine, but that's not a real
> TCO calculation unless "personal enjoyment" comes out of it.
>
> > But just to show I'm not biased, if I put figures in I think would be
> > relevant to me, the TCO of my Mac is waaaay higher than if I had a PC.
>
> Publish them, please.
Oh, I can't remember exactly what they were, but if I was a PC user, I
would be the 'hobbiest' type who built my own and puts little value on
my 'tinkering' time. Hence, Wintel would be cheaper for me. But I
still don't want one.
> > But it still doesn't matter, because there are aspects of Mac ownership
> > that you can't summerise
>
> Summarize. It has nothing to do with the hot season. (Don't get this wrong
> in a corporate report. ;-)
Actually, in British English - which is what I use, for obvious reasons
- it's 'summarise'. So yes, I got it wrong, but only a bit wrong! ;-p
That's what you get when you use a newsreader without a spel chekker.
> > into $. That's something you either 'get', or
> > - like the 'Win nuts' - you don't.
>
> Yep.
--
Autymn D. C.
http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/pages/03.html and the rest of the
site for a killer case.
-Aut