“How much does it cost to maintain Windows and Mac OS X? Since Apple has released five times as many major updates and over fifteen times as many minor updates to Mac OS X since 2000, you might not have guessed that Windows actually costs users five times as much to keep up to date,” Daniel Eran writes for RoughlyDrafted. “Here’s a historical comparison of professional desktop operating systems from both, leading up to a future outlook for how Microsoft’s significantly more expensive platform will affect new computer sales in 2007.”
Eran found that, for a Mac user since 2000 who upgraded to each new version of Mac OS X, the total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software was approximately $50 a year, or around $350 since 2000. But, for a Windows user since 2000 who upgraded at the one opportunity available, the total cost of maintaining Windows software was over $250 a year, or more than $1800 since 2000.
“The much lower cost of Mac OS X and Apple’s far more frequent releases of free updates will be a major selling point next year for users comparing the purchase of a new Mac with Leopard over a new PC with Vista,” Eran writes. “Additionally, while Leopard will likely continue to run on the same Macs as Tiger (anything modern enough to have built in Firewire), Vista will require a new PC to run, likely something from the last year and a half.”
Eran asks, “Will users see the value in paying over three times as much for Vista over Leopard? With the average price of consumer PCs dropping this year to $744, will users be excited to pay around half the cost of a new PC to buy Vista Ultimate Edition software?”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple Mac Pro with/ 20” Cinema Display less expensive than Dell Precision 690 sans monitor – August 10, 2006
Bear Stearns: Apple’s new Mac Pro, Xserve pricing well below comparable Dell systems – August 09, 2006
Apple cuts prices across entire Cinema Display line – August 08, 2006
Dell warns of earnings miss; shares plunge 15% – July 21, 2006
Survey shows big jump in consumer interest in buying Apple Mac; Dell takes steep slide – July 06, 2006
The Wired 40: Apple #2, Microsoft drops to #36, Dell falls off list – June 28, 2006
Time Magazine on Apple’s 13-inch MacBook: ‘Dell and HP should be very worried’ – June 07, 2006
Apple passes Dell in market value – May 02, 2006
Dude, you got a Dell? What are you, stupid? Only Apple Macs run both Mac OS X and Windows! – April 05, 2006
I wouldn’t run vista if it were free on a free PC.
uhm, doesn’t he forget the price of the OS purchases? Shouldn’t there be 5x $128 USD somewhere in that chart? Maybe I don’t get this at all – but what exactly is included in this “maintain” ?
From memory, I think 10.0 was cheap as chips and 10.1 was free. I vaguely remember a big bruhah when we were asked to pay for Jaguar.
This headline is misleading. Purchasing OS updates is only one small component of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), which is the true measure of computer ownership/maintenance cost. Installing the updates is a cost not mentioned. Also not mentioned is the cost of anti-malware, etc. Andthat doesn’t even touch on productivity costs.
A bogus headline on a bogus article.
*** RETRACTION ***
I retract my comments about the article. It is quite good, and worth reading.
I stand by my comments about the bogus MDN headline. Also this was a poor editorial job by MDN – they missed the full intenet of the article.
Actually, PC ownership is even higher. Have you
noticed how often Windows user replace their
machines? From the first day they take it out of the
box, it starts slowing down. Anti- virus, malware,
ect. The actual viruses and malware that do infect
the machine, lack of code optimization, .dll’s
piling up. Some people know that they must wipe the
hdd (laughable). The less knowledgable ones say,
“man this thing is slow, off to Best Buy!”.
I think this is a silly comparison. But what is not silly is that fact that a copy of Windows XP is $310 while OS X 10.4 sells for $129 (and can be found for as little as $89!) Windows Server 2003 with 25 client licenses costs $3706 while OS X Server v10.4 w/ unlimited client licenses is only $999!
I’m sorry, but I find Microsoft’s pricing to be outrageous. How in the world can they justify their cost?
Mac users by FAR are the better value purchasers
They also to happen to be a little bit smarter than the average Windows PC user which gets sucked into Microsoft’s software “Stockholm Syndrome” effect.
This is why it’s very important Mac users shouldn’t buy Microsoft software, OfficeMac is a insecure trojan horse designed to lure a Mac user into the SS effect and eventually Windows hell.
Much like a preacher has almost full control over his church’s minions minds, so does Microsoft have abusive control over PC users minds. Apple has control too, but it’s not abusive, it’s seductive.
For the average computer buyer out there, these long-term cost comparisons won’t be factored into the buying experience. Apple still has this “too expensive” and “not compatible with anything” stigma attached to it.
Granted…the truth is, Apple is a far superior product than any Microsoft-based product, but Apple has some big hurdles to overcome if it wants to be a major world-wide player. I think Apple is doing a great job; these things take time. But for the time being…Joe Computer Buyer is more than likely to pick a $399 Dell for his college bound youngster.
Sad, but true.
Bill: “How in the world can they (MS) justify their cost?”
Answer: They don’t. It behaves as a monopoly should.
This article does not factor TCO, Total Cost of Ownership; the resulting loss of productive time spent fixing, adjusting, installing, restarting and restoring the operating system. Anti-malware software and other necessary non-proprietary software slows down the OS and further wastes the user’s time.
Every time anyone has tried to compare the Windows and Mac operating systems in terms of TCO, Mac ALWAYS comes out far less expensive.
When you add the more frequent repairs and replacements of Windows PCs, Mac would be cheap at twice the price. Sadly, most people are far too lazy to do any research and they just buy computers like they would a microwave oven, assuming all computers are the same, and never realize they can make a choice that will save them hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars with just a few hours of online research.
Antivirus, firewall, system mechanic, registry cleaners, antispyware, and so on. Is what you need to keep your windows computer a little bit longer before you have to re format the hard drive. And you will take 3 hours to make it work again with all the drivers and protection software. Reformat a Mac, only takes 20 minutes and you do not need to do it every six 6 weeks..
Wow, will some of those commenting actually read the article before spouting BS? The author DOES take into account the TCO due to /security/malware. If you don’t agree with the math, say so. But don’t ignore what the author identifies as the most expensive part of maintaining Windows. Especially if you’re going to label others as “lazy.”
Jake,
You really didn’t make much of a point. The author didn’t say anything about time spent.
That was M di L B Simoni’s point. My point
was that lots of people actually replace a
machine to alleviate the problem. So, what was
your point again?
The answers to Eran’s questions is simply no. And especially on the issue of looking at how much more it really costs to run Windows, that’s the one question that no Windows user, private or enterprise, is willing to look at. Make no mistake, it has always been cheaper to use Macs in the long run – period, this is nothing new to those of us who have always used Macs at home and in the workplace.
I think with Apple’s migration to Intel, the perception of them being more expensive and incompatible will gradually change. Even the computer store geek salespeople will not be able to convince people that the $399 PC with a 3-4 year old processor will have performance equal to a dual-core, or core2 processor. Don’t forget, HP and Dell also sell the latest processors and you won’t find them selling for $399. When they advertise on TV showing all the multi-media stuff you can do on their computers, they’re not talking about the cheap boxes. Joe Computer buyer will not be able to pawn-off a $399 p.o.s. computer on their college-bound youngster, the kid knows better, they’ll tell Dad to shove-it.
The article, while better than most, is certainly flawed. It under-counts the costs of owning an up-to-date and secure Mac and both under-counts and over-counts the costs of doing the same to a Windows system.
If you had the buffest Mac going in 2001 – where he started – you’d be able to proceed without getting a new system. More likely, though, you wouldn’t. Macs have a life expectancy double that of WIntels, about four years. Add in the cost of a G4 iMac a couple of years ago.
The cost of eliminating spyware is inflated. He should have shopped around. He, too, should have added in the cost of new systems. One several years back and another – a “Vista-ready” model – about now. The costs of the systems could be considered a wash as you could get two PCs for the price of an iMac. The newer one would be competitive with the G4 iMac.
It certainly should be a “point taken” for those who continually yap about the price of a new version of OS X. You are getting good value for your dollar, even if you don’t consider that you are ‘paying forward’ on your next opportunity to spend-again. 10.1 wasn’t as good as XP. Jaguar, maybe, Panther, certainly. Tiger is on more or less equal footing with what Longhorn should have been – maybe a step behind the initial proposal but likely ahead of what will be delivered. Leopard will be in the lead in nearly all aspects.
OK … Mail, integrated with iCal, is still playing catch-up.
OK … iChat is arguably equal to anything on Windows.
OK … Safari is still not quite up to dealing with MS-induced ‘features’.
OK … they get Solitaire and Minesweeper while we get Chess
Maybe that’s the secret not currently disclosed with Leopoard. Maybe they are waiting until a release date is imminent for Vista so they can offer licenses to existing Windows users to upgrade their current computers to OSX rather than purchasing a new computer to run Vista.
This is a totally innaccurate story.
I’m 100% behind Apple, and absolutely hate Microsoft, but i’m not about to post a story that is untrue…that ruins our cred.
Then discredit the story. We’re waiting.
The article is good except for one line and the conclusions he draws from it: 200/year for geek squad cleaning. That is 1400 of his 1800 total and it’s a ridiculous figure. There are cheaper services or you could just reformat and reinstall, which costs nothing but time, sometimes a lot of time. The last option is to buy a new PC, and unfortunately this is what many people do. The methods to fix an ailing spyware/adware/virus infested PC are many, and to just assume that one is going to pick a 200/year service is just bad journalism. It makes this article almost meaningless.
So it’s cheaper to buy a new PC than to hire Geek Squad (which obviously a lot of people do) to clean it up? What about your data?
Also, how much cheaper can you find spyware removal? Can most people do this themselves? Try Googling to find many stories of expert PC users who gave up on infested Windows installations and reinstalled the OS. It’s no secret.
For the majority of people, a third party cleanup is something they need, ENTIRELY because of their running Windows.
If you want to entrust your PC to the kid down the street or whomever will show up for less than $50 an hour, good luck. Do you also spend 25 cents on a haircut?
Excellent reply coming from, of all places, TUAW:
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/08/15/fuzzy-tactics-arent-helping-the-mac-community
yeah, mac may be cheaper to maintain, but for microsoft software at least u get a decent user experience. Come on, macs suck
People forget that something that is new will give the appearance of being better.
The simple reason for this being that a new product does not come with a history.
Take for example this comment by Thorin:
“From the first day they take it out of the box, it starts slowing down.”
For windows 98/ME this might have been true, but XP/Vista, hardly. Had Windows XP/Vista been the first Windows released ever, then no one would have such a negative image.
Also, do we complain that Car brand XYZ sucks because this idiot drove it into a tree? Apple/Mac OS is in the shiny period of product life. Everything is shiny and new, and it all looks good. Once the average user starts using it (which isn’t really happening yet) you will see things start going wrong, bad software will come out for it and people will blame Apple, not the author of the software and it will slowly become like Windows.