MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Honestly, I retouch photos, file my taxes, keep my accounts, create page layouts, surf and email on my Mac.
What am I missing Tom?
Agro? Oh, yeah, that!

So...how come the two hard-core PC sites, Anand Tech and Tom's Hardware "get it", and all the hack PC "journalists" don't?

You really have to cut people some slack on the software comment. While 18,000 titles is a lot, it is a FACT that many many critical business software apps are not available on Mac. If they were, I'd have switched my company to a Mac network. In business, where legacy systems are a reality that must be dealt with, you don't have unlimited options as to what software ot hardware you can run.

However, the writers SHOULD clearly state that for home users, where a FUNCTION is the key issue of software selection, there is no task/function for which there is not a great Mac app to do the job (most likely better than the windows version, even for MS Office)

Unless your talking custom applications for business. There are more than enough applications to run any business.

SAVE THE PLANET! USE LESS ELECTRICITY!! BUY A MAC MINI!!!

save the planet, save us from the middle east! I say it's unamerican to waste energy with your pc. the real patriots use a Mac! (700%!)

M. T. MacPhee,

probably because these hardcore PC sites are used to really thoroughly stuff and put it through its paces and therefore detect things the others miss.

A related question: How come it takes a hardcore PC site to come up with some really good arguments for the Mini? I've never heard the low energy consumption mentioned before.

Good point, but I think you answered your own question. Tom's and Anand's are based on REAL expertise, not BS. Real experts appreciate Apple's advances, while the hacks...well, there's a reason we refer to them as hacks.
Cheers.

Now, if National Geographic would just come out with a street map for its TOPO! map series on the Mac!

"Good point, but I think you answered your own question. Tom's and Anand's are based on REAL expertise, not BS. Real experts appreciate Apple's advances, while the hacks...well, there's a reason we refer to them as hacks.
Cheers."

OK, I'll say it...the reason is that they're morons. And quite possibly paid or ordered by paid superiors to spew their venom.

Tom and Anand are true professionals.

It won't play my games. I can't build my own from parts for half the price. It doesn't come with anit virus and anti spyware software.

What good is it.

Wow, 700%!!!! That number will come in handy.

RE: critic
The software you speak of are custom-made in house. By your reasoning, not much biotech software is available for Windows.
TH and other's making the same tied argument are still under the impression that 14 different email applications is the standard measure of software availability.

I wonder how many Applications are multiple versions of the same App? How many greeting card programs do you need?

Granted there will always be more applications simply because of the marketshare but volume does not always denote quality.

How much $$ we lookin' at annually with the difference in power consumption between the mini and the PC? Rough estimations of course.

It's good to see sites like Tom's Hardware covering the Mac now. One big advantage the PC side is that rigorous testing of software and equipment is de rigeur on that side of the fence. Most Mac websites and magazines review things much less rigorously - it's mostly about look and feel, with a few benchmarks that take less than 5 minutes to run (SpeedMark or Xbench being the most common).

But it's great that the Tom's Hardware review is pointing out the energy costs of running a PC. 160 watts is a lot of energy to use, and a lot of the gaming PCs will burn up as much as 400 watts. That's like getting to the major appliance level. It's ridiculous, if not irresponsible - it's like designing a toilet that flushes 10 gallons of water each time.

Wonder if the people who own 400 watt computers also drive massive SUV's, thus chewing oil at an alarming rate as well??

Unfortunately, medical transcription, dictation, record-keeping, and image-management programs are not yet available for the Mac in any fashion that can match the PC counterparts, nor am I aware of anyone moving in that direction. That market is expanding enormously, but all research and development is directed at Windows-compatible solutions, and will be until there is a complete shift in the market (10-15 years from now, at best).

TB2:

Exact numbers will depend of course on your local energy prices.

Here in Vienna, a kWh averages to 6 Eurocent. If the computer is running 10 hrs/day, you'd save 2.50/month. If it is running 24/7 (webserver &c;.), you'd save 6.00/month. If you turn it on only for one or two hours a day, the savings are hardly relevant, especially if you send it to sleep in the meantime instead of turning it off.

"RE: critic
The software you speak of are custom-made in house. By your reasoning, not much biotech software is available for Windows.
TH and other's making the same tied argument are still under the impression that 14 different email applications is the standard measure of software availability."

For most industries, you are working with "custom-made" software, as every industry has it's own unique requirements. However, this does not imply custom-made for every individual company. If this was true, you could "custom-make" software for any platform you choose to run.

However, from a cost standpoint, I am stuck with windows because I DON'T want to pay to have to have a system custom programmed. It just so happens that nearly all of the middle market financial and ERP software is MS only, because MS bought everyone serving that market (Navision, Great Plains, Soloman).

Bleive me, I shopped around looking for a Mac alternative that could meet all of my company's needs.

Just as you make the arguement that 14 different email applications isn't a good measure of software availability (presumable on the basis that you only use on, and a lot of them suck anyway), it is also unreasonable to say that just because there is 1 email application then software is readily available.

Unfortunately, with a business application, you often don't have the luxury of making compromises the way you can with a machine at home.

I am only writing this because I think that die-hard mac supporters grossly underestimate the difficulty of ever gaining significant market share in the enterprise environment and don't truely understand hoow difficult it is for a business to switch platforms. Whether or not a Mac can run MS Office is not the only deciding factor.

The only problem with windows is there is no windows software
i tried to find software in many different stores, no luck
suprisingly the apple store had more then 2 windows titles

some stores i could not find any windows titles;
aquariums are us
bunnings hardware
macdonalds
tyremart
mills record bar

magic word human as in 'human error'

Haruspex, how the hell did you work that out?
did you use the same math when you bought your windows PC


a 100 watt computer uses 1 kilowatt every 10 hours
at 10c a KW that is
24c per day
$1.68 per week
$4.70 per month
$87.60 per year

a 20 watt computer uses 1 kilowatt every 50 hours
at 10c a KW that is 4.8c per day
33c per week
94c per month
$17.52 per year

a 400 watt 'gaming machine' would cost $350.40c per year

Imagine these costs when scaled to large corporate enviroments

a 17" CRT monitor uses roughly 100 watts per hour
a 17" flatscreen uses arount 20-30 watts per hour

energy prices vary from 6c to 18c per KW world wide
hope that helps TB

Great, great, article about what makes the mini so great.
Watts, watts, watts... and of course the OS.

RadioMoscow,

what's wrong with my math? The numbers the article gave were 20W vs. 160W, thus saving 140W. Assuming a use of ten hours per day, this is:

140x10x30=42000Wh=42kWh per month,

which, at a price of 6c per kWh (I took the price here in Vienna, I don't know any others), is 2.52 (these are, of course, Euros, and would be something like $3.20). If the computer is running round the clock, as a webserver would, it's of course 2.4 times as much, or 6.05.

Anything wrong with that?

nah nothing wrong with that
i just get easily confused

i think you too quickly dismiss the potential savings

heres some napster math
'a company with 10000 pc's saving $2.52 pm is $25,200 savings'

magic word 'future' as in you will read this in the future, which will be your present when you read it and your past when you have finished