"And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for the children. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness."

- C.S. Lewis
Who Cares About U2 Vs. The Beatles?

We're talking Apple vs. PC here! ;-)

This is an interesting blog post from the Houston Chronicle's Tech Editor on the price difference between the two systems.

But eWeek's Joe Wilcox says that, while he wasn't looking, that has changed. Windows-based computers -- and particularly notebooks -- are now much more powerful than Macs, and a lot cheaper. He thinks Apple not only must lower prices, but is actually planning on it.


If Apple lowers prices, that's good for everyone. Apple has always been too rich for my blood. The aforementioned post sums it up nicely ...

Of course, Mac fans will tell you -- ad nauseum -- that Apple computers have other benefits, ranging from better reliability and stability, to great service and support, to fewer hassles with security malware. There's also the fact that Macs can also run Windows, but the reverse isn't true (unless you're willing do some hacking and violate some EULAs). But then, when your budget is the bottom line, those secondary benefits become, well, secondary . . .


One of these days I'd like to own an Apple (besides my iPod), until then I'm happy with my PC. I find that people who have the most problems with PCs are generally the type of people who are relatively clueless about how to maintain them in the first place. (With that said, I'm fully expecting mine to crash now.)

:gbird:

Trackbacks:

Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/4765.

Comments on "Who Cares About U2 Vs. The Beatles?":
1. Jared - 08/06/2008 1:23 pm CDT

For all the geek chic that powers the "choose Mac" crowd, you've hit on my reason for joy over our having made the switch -- the idea that your PC won't crash (as often?) if you maintain it well.
I don't want to spend as much time crossing every technological T to make sure my computer works as I do actually using my computer. I don't want to have to be a computer nerd to keep my machine from blue-screening me to death.

How about just making a computer that works?
That's why I'm glad we made the switch to Mac.

2. Bill - 08/06/2008 1:50 pm CDT

Well said, Jared.

Companies spend unbelievable amounts of time (= money) "patching" windows to keep it stable. I've never understood the budget argument. Yes, Macs are more expensive. But they don't s_ck.

That being said, I have both a windows and a mac at home. And I wouldn't expect businesses to go mac.

What I really just want is Microsoft to quit producing such a sub-standard OS. Make it stable, make it more lightweight, more secure. I like the interface, for the most part. I just don't like the performance and the nerd-wrestling you have to do with the system to get it protected, etc.

Case in point. I think MS Office is great. But - man! - is it bloated!

3. rob t. - 08/06/2008 2:01 pm CDT

I also take issue with the old argument that PCs are cheaper. Yes, that used to be true, and in some cases the lower end PCs are cheaper, but it's not the case across the board anymore.

I was recently upgraded at work and I did a price comparison as part of my attempt to persuade the powers-that-be to let me have a Mac. I "built" a Dell on their website with the same specs as a Mac Pro tower, complete with 30" flat panel monitor (and Apple Cinema Displays are insanely expensive). The Dell was a good $2000 more than the Mac.

I've also seen articles recently in reputable tech magazines that say the same thing (though, of course, I can 't find any of them now ...).

4. jen - 08/06/2008 2:14 pm CDT

My Dad is a computer guru - it's his job - and he just switched to a mac at home. He had the most powerful PC available and it was taking 28 minutes to boot up because of all the things necessary to add to it to protect it.

Dad showed us the awesomeness of his mac a couple of weeks ago and I'm sold. Our next computers will be macs for sure.

5. Bill - 08/06/2008 6:35 pm CDT

Oh, I almost forgot . . .

The Beatles.

6. Bill - 08/06/2008 6:38 pm CDT

Oh, and final note (I've commented on this in another post too).

Try this on a windows machine. Take a machine you bought 3 1/2 years ago that was spec'd out for Windows XP, and load Vista on it. Will it run the same?

A month or so ago I upgraded our iMac that we bought in 2004 from Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther" to 10.5 "Leopard".

No discernible difference in performance. Everything still runs well.

7. Bill - 08/06/2008 6:39 pm CDT

The upgrade was pretty smooth too.

8. Bird - 08/07/2008 7:55 am CDT

Oh, I almost forgot . . .

The Beatles.


I did a side-by-side comparison for my employer, and U2 had more power for less money than The Beatles. U2 also loaded easier and didn't come with all of the bloating that The Beatles are notorious for.

9. Andrew - 08/07/2008 12:25 pm CDT

I did a side-by-side comparison for my employer, and U2 had more power for less money than The Beatles. U2 also loaded easier and didn't come with all of the bloating that The Beatles are notorious for.

Hahahahahahaha. You're dead wrong of course, but that definitely made me laugh.

10. brandontmilan - 08/08/2008 11:23 am CDT

As a fan of both U2 and the Beatles, I refuse to accept this metaphor.

Leave a Comment:
Name:
URL: (optional)
Email: (optional - will not be published)
Comment: