On switching platforms
2004-09-29 11:24![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chipotleThis is playing off a post from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cargoweasel about the newly discovered JPEG vulnerability in Windows. "How many times do you need this hammered into your skulls. Microsoft Windows is A BROKEN OPERATING SYSTEM," he writes. "What price sanity? How much is all that time and aggravation costing you? Is it really worth saving a couple hundred bucks?"
And these are good questions. I started to reply there, but decided I'd muse over here at greater length.
I have a friend who's thought occasionally about getting a Mac instead of his Windows machine -- he doesn't have any problems with Windows (that he's talked about), but he's comfortable with Unix and likes Apple's designs and so on and so on. And we can even set aside the argument about hardware price; if you're buying a new machine from scratch, the difference is pretty sharply reduced, particularly if you're buying a turnkey PC system from a big name vendor.
If he made that switch, though, the hardware cost isn't the issue. He would have to buy new copies of all of his programs. He has Corel Painter. He has Microsoft Office. He has an earlier Adobe bundle which is pretty much what became the Adobe Creative Suite.
So suddenly, that's $1500 more to make the switch, just based on those programs. And that's going for the "standard" version of the suites--tack on another few hundred if you go for the full shebang. And there are probably lots of little other programs he's bought over the years--not games--that add another few hundred. (He also has Maya, which is another $1999, although that's kind of an unusual case!)
This works both ways, of course. PC users can go on all they want about how the new AMD SuperChicken64 will run twice as fast as my G5, let me use ten times the memory and a better video card and do it all for two-thirds the price. And that's all great, but unless the SuperChicken comes with pretty direct equivalents to $1800 worth of software--yes, I just added it up--any theoretical savings switching to it is more than negated.
But what price sanity? is still a good question. Statistically, even Windows gods are increasingly risking being bitch-slapped by viruses, spyware and all sorts of other nasty crawlies. And even if they're not, Windows--both the original line and the NT line--is subject to what I called "creeping crud syndrome"--just through normal use, things subtly get messed up, until eventually you reinstall your operating system in frustration. I know Windows users who never seem to have any serious problems with their OS, but they appear to be in an ever-decreasing minority.
cargoweasel about the newly discovered JPEG vulnerability in Windows. "How many times do you need this hammered into your skulls. Microsoft Windows is A BROKEN OPERATING SYSTEM," he writes. "What price sanity? How much is all that time and aggravation costing you? Is it really worth saving a couple hundred bucks?"And these are good questions. I started to reply there, but decided I'd muse over here at greater length.
I have a friend who's thought occasionally about getting a Mac instead of his Windows machine -- he doesn't have any problems with Windows (that he's talked about), but he's comfortable with Unix and likes Apple's designs and so on and so on. And we can even set aside the argument about hardware price; if you're buying a new machine from scratch, the difference is pretty sharply reduced, particularly if you're buying a turnkey PC system from a big name vendor.
If he made that switch, though, the hardware cost isn't the issue. He would have to buy new copies of all of his programs. He has Corel Painter. He has Microsoft Office. He has an earlier Adobe bundle which is pretty much what became the Adobe Creative Suite.
So suddenly, that's $1500 more to make the switch, just based on those programs. And that's going for the "standard" version of the suites--tack on another few hundred if you go for the full shebang. And there are probably lots of little other programs he's bought over the years--not games--that add another few hundred. (He also has Maya, which is another $1999, although that's kind of an unusual case!)
This works both ways, of course. PC users can go on all they want about how the new AMD SuperChicken64 will run twice as fast as my G5, let me use ten times the memory and a better video card and do it all for two-thirds the price. And that's all great, but unless the SuperChicken comes with pretty direct equivalents to $1800 worth of software--yes, I just added it up--any theoretical savings switching to it is more than negated.
But what price sanity? is still a good question. Statistically, even Windows gods are increasingly risking being bitch-slapped by viruses, spyware and all sorts of other nasty crawlies. And even if they're not, Windows--both the original line and the NT line--is subject to what I called "creeping crud syndrome"--just through normal use, things subtly get messed up, until eventually you reinstall your operating system in frustration. I know Windows users who never seem to have any serious problems with their OS, but they appear to be in an ever-decreasing minority.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 12:27 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 13:24 (UTC)Just so you know, I'm as poor as the next cube drone schmoe coming off an 18 month unemployed stretch. And I've had to go 3 years without buying a new computer of any kind. And the 2001-era iBook that was the bottom of the line when i got it is still my primary computer and is going to be for the next 6-8 months at least. It did need a logic board replacement last year but has run pretty well in 3 years. Total cost of ownership has been much less than a comparable 'commodity' PC would have been, because that PC would have had to be upgraded almost completely by now.
I feel I got my thousand bucks worth out of this laptop.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 13:55 (UTC)Maybe you are now, but the fact that you can afford such devices at all means that you're affluent, whether you feel like it or not. It's not too surprising; people well into the upper class think of themselves as 'middle class', perhaps because they're not driving a gold-plated SUV which they wash in champagne every weekend.
I'm reluctant to get into a ghetto contest, but I've had a P3 800 running Win98 since early 2000, and as of this writing I still see no reason to get anything faster. My only real upgrade on it was to buy a slightly better video card to meet There's minimum requirements; 'better' in this case was just about the cheapest card Fry's still bothered to carry. And despite my being unemployed for the last three years, I'm under no illusion that I'm genuinely poor, as evidenced by the fact that I'm not on welfare and living in a doorway.
As for snobby, yes, you are... a good number of your LJ entries could be product endorsements for upscale consumer goods (for which Apple products qualify, incidentally). I'm not sure 'snobby' really counts as an insult in this case, since you seem rather proud of your choices, and of your contempt for products not meeting your standards.
Anyway, I suppose it was out of turn for me to jump on you at all, since I know you weren't addressing everyone, but rather just the people who can make expensive purchases at will. I probably shouldn't have said anything.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 14:15 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 14:39 (UTC)Considering that baseline eMac systems, which are actually more powerful than baseline PC systems, are available for about $700, and come preloaded with productivity and home-office software, that argument is a bit difficult to support. Can you get a PC for less than $700? Yes, but i guarantee it ain't gonna come preloaded with any MS productivity software! Add Office and you're well above the price of the eMac.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 15:35 (UTC)