Popular Mechanics has conducted a Apple Mac vs. Microsoft Windows PC smackdown and, unsurprisingly to Mac users, Apple Mac swept the contest, winning both the desktop and notebook categories.
Glenn Derene reports for Popular Mechanics, “We tested two all-in-one desktops and two laptops—one Mac and one PC per category—and assembled a panel of testers with a range of experience and preference that ran the gamut from expert users to my wife’s stepfather, who, by his own account, had never actually turned on a computer. Our testers were asked to set up the computers right out of the box and explore the machines through everyday tasks such as Web surfing, document creation, uploading photos, downloading Adobe Acrobat files and playing music and movies through Media Center and Front Row (the entertainment software suites integrated into Vista and Leopard, respectively). Our testers were instructed to divorce themselves as much as possible from their previous technological preferences and rate their experiences with each computer’s software and hardware.”
Derene reports, “Usability surveys are like taste tests—a useful look at the subjective appeal of a device. (Is it fun? Is it easy? Would I be happy to live with this thing?) But beneath their packaging, computers are data-crunching machines that can be run like racehorses. So the second component of our test regimen was about pure performance.”
The Verdict: Apple
Mac: In both the laptop and desktop showdowns, Apple’s computers were the winners. Oddly, the big difference didn’t come in our user ratings, where we expected the famously friendly Mac interface to shine. Our respondents liked the look and feel of both operating systems but had a slight preference toward OS X. In our speed trials, however, Leopard OS trounced Vista in all-important tasks such as boot-up, shutdown and program-launch times. We even tested Vista on the Macs using Apple’s platform-switching Boot Camp software—and found that both Apple computers ran Vista faster than our PCs did.
PC: Simply put, Vista proved to be a more sluggish operating system than Leopard. Our PCs installed some software faster, but in general they were slower in our time trials. Plus, both PCs showed weaker performance on third-party benchmarks than the Macs. Our biggest surprise, however, was that PCs were not the relative bargains we expected them to be. The Asus M51sr costs the same as a MacBook, while the Gateway One actually costs $300 more than an iMac. That means for the price of the Gateway you could buy an iMac, boost its hard drive to match the Gateway’s, purchase a copy of Vista to boot—and still save $100.
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “RadDoc” for the heads up.]
I dont blame ZuneTang for cancelling his PM subscription. Its a crappy rag, at best.
Windows is obviously FAR superior to Leopard – look at the list of reasons why:
Cheaper, as long as you dont mind less features.
You can build your own PC from used parts.
Lots more anti-virus software available.
Familiar – when you get home and surf the web, its just like being at work.
Less pictures, music and movies – keeps you mean and efficient.
Excellent teaching tool – forces you to learn how to deal with a crashed computer.
Keeps you alert – you can never relax with Windows.
Far more porn sites run better on a PC.
Most extremists use XP.
Ordering Viagra online is much easier with Windows.
Your analysis is typical – comparing Apple with PC makers.
Apple make the OS and the machine, in a symbiosis impossible for all other companies.
So the comparison is useless. I may be wrong, but arent Apple already achieving double-digits in the USA without resorting to selling CRAP?
Perhaps cheap crap will always sell well, but the purchasers know they would rather have an Apple if the time comes when they can afford it.
Not to be unpleasant, but your suggestion that Apple sell cheap crap is akin to suggesting that your mother turns a few tricks to afford a better car – not a good idea, IMHO.
I should probably apologise for his post in advance of posting it….
Your analysis is typical – comparing Apple with PC makers.
Apple make the OS and the machine, in a symbiosis impossible for all other companies.
So the comparison is useless. I may be wrong, but arent Apple already achieving double-digits in the USA without resorting to selling CRAP?
Perhaps cheap crap will always sell well, but the purchasers know they would rather have an Apple if the time comes when they can afford it.
Not to be unpleasant, but your suggestion that Apple sell cheap crap is akin to suggesting that your mother turns a few tricks to afford a better car – not a good idea, IMHO.
I should probably apologise for his post in advance of posting it….
Your analysis is typical – comparing Apple with PC makers.
Apple make the OS and the machine, in a symbiosis impossible for all other companies.
So the comparison is useless. I may be wrong, but arent Apple already achieving double-digits in the USA without resorting to selling CRAP?
Perhaps cheap crap will always sell well, but the purchasers know they would rather have an Apple if the time comes when they can afford it.
Not to be unpleasant, but your suggestion that Apple sell cheap crap is akin to suggesting that your mother turns a few tricks to afford a better car – not a good idea, IMHO.
I should probably apologise for his post in advance of posting it….
Your analysis is typical – comparing Apple with PC makers.
Apple make the OS and the machine, in a symbiosis impossible for all other companies.
So the comparison is useless. I may be wrong, but arent Apple already achieving double-digits in the USA without resorting to selling CRAP?
Perhaps cheap crap will always sell well, but the purchasers know they would rather have an Apple if the time comes when they can afford it.
Not to be unpleasant, but your suggestion that Apple sell cheap crap is akin to suggesting that your mother turns a few tricks to afford a better car – not a good idea, IMHO.
I should probably apologise for his post in advance of posting it….
Your analysis is typical – comparing Apple with PC makers.
Apple make the OS and the machine, in a symbiosis impossible for all other companies.
So the comparison is useless. I may be wrong, but arent Apple already achieving double-digits in the USA without resorting to selling CRAP?
Perhaps cheap crap will always sell well, but the purchasers know they would rather have an Apple if the time comes when they can afford it.
Not to be unpleasant, but your suggestion that Apple sell cheap crap is akin to suggesting that your mother turns a few tricks to afford a better car – not a good idea, IMHO.
I should probably apologise for his post in advance of posting it….
Your analysis is typical – comparing Apple with PC makers.
Apple make the OS and the machine, in a symbiosis impossible for all other companies.
So the comparison is useless. I may be wrong, but arent Apple already achieving double-digits in the USA without resorting to selling CRAP?
Perhaps cheap crap will always sell well, but the purchasers know they would rather have an Apple if the time comes when they can afford it.
Not to be unpleasant, but your suggestion that Apple sell cheap crap is akin to suggesting that your mother turns a few tricks to afford a better car – not a good idea, IMHO.
I should probably apologise for his post in advance of posting it….
Ah yes, I love busting the myths…
Macs are and were always ahead of windoze!!!
Sachin
Zune Tang is a real test. It is rather interesting to see who gets what.
MW word “man”, as in oh man …
Actually, Microsoft is an oligopoly – they’d only be a monopoly if OS-X, Linux and every embedded OS didn’t exist. And their status as an oligopoly is eroding quickly.