"I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I donit always agree with them." - George Bush (1924 - )
Hereis a subject thatis bound to elicit both well considered and emotionally stoked opinions: Which REALLY cost less, Macs or PCs?
There are many yardsticks you can try to use to measure the cost of owning a Mac versus a PC; initial hardware cost, cost of maintaining either, the cost in man-hours to accomplish a task...On either platform, these issues will yield statistics that will point to one platform or the other, depending on who is gathering the information.
Newsfactor Network has posted a Special Report titled Mac vs. PC: The Truth About TCO , written by James Maguire, which takes a look at the debate from many angles. Hereis an excerpt:
It is one of the great truths of computer ownership that base cost is just part of the total cost of ownership (TCO). Issues like long-term maintenance costs, security and reliability also come into play.
Further complicating the issue is the "Cadillac vs. Mercedes Benz" analogy. A Cadillac is less expensive, but a Cadillac cannot go from 0 to 60 in 8.5 seconds. A similar computer platform may be cheaper, but does it really offer the same performance as its higher-priced competitor?
"Clearly, the price tags for PCs are lower -- at least at the low end," says Macworld editor-in-chief Jason Snell.
"However, we recently tested the speed of high-end Macs and PCs, and theyire comparable -- for comparable prices -- in many areas. So, itis probably most realistic to say that while the cheapest PCs cost less than the cheapest Macs, the cheapest Macs are probably comparable with PCs that cost a similar amount," he told NewsFactor.
"In other words, as usual, you get what you pay for."
The article goes on to look at the cost of ownership comparisons from other angles and makes some interesting conclusions. Stop by Newsfactor Network for the full story.