I see
Dudeman, I think we agree on much more than appears at first blush.
1) There are more expensive computers than a Mac Mini....most of them being other Macs.
2) I will have to trust you re. the superiority of 64 bit OSX over 64 bit Windows. Unfortunately, OSX will only run in 32 bit mode on my Mac computers...even my original Mac Pro! And my 20008 Mac Mini and my son's Macbook. And never mind my 2004 PPC Mini...which Steve decided doesn't deserve any more OS updates. So all I can do is compare it to my 2007 HP laptop which is humming along very nicely running 64 bit Win7.
Regarding registry issues...we again agree that only Windows computers have those. Curiously, though, I have only had problems with .plist files on OSX. Odd how those things happen.
3) I think we also agree as to why over 90% of business computers are Windows based. Because when you total up their cost to buy and maintain, and the amount of work they can accomplish (at least in part due to their better software support), the Windows computers are a better buy. If Apple computers were the better buy, there would be a tidal wave of IT managers getting promoted after their decision to change to Macs. But there isn't.
I also acknowledge your point that there are many smaller companies where the owner may make the computer buying decision without same type of critical analysis of the computer buying decision as the IT departments of larger companies. Maybe the owner choosing a Mac is right for their circumstance, maybe not. But the vast majority of businesses have chosen, and they have chosen PCs.
4) On this point I think you don't understand the difference between Script-Kiddies playing at hacking, and real Hackers. You may be right that there are things inherent in OSX that can deter Script-kiddies. But a professional Hacker wants to infect thousands of machines quickly. Not onesy twosy. He wants to infect a machine, and then have that machine send out messages to hundreds of others. If he infects a Mac with a Mac virus, when that machine rebroadcasts the virus what does it see....on average, only 1 in 25 of the computers to which it broadcasts are going to be Macs and the rest will be Windows or another computer that is not subject to the Mac virus. So the virus would die. Not because the Mac is so virus resistant, but because they are so relatively rare that the Hacker can't find a critical concentration of Macs to infect. As a result, the Hackers focus on Windows computers.
5) Interesting challenge. We have different experiences. I'm writing this on a 12 year old PC running Windows ME (which is a dog). Still boots in about 45 seconds. Never have had it break down. Upgraded the processor once, and the hard drive a couple of times. Otherwise, same as the day it was built. I've already mentioned my 2007 HP laptop that I purchased refurbished. Did have to replace the screen power inverter a few months ago. Cost me $11.50. Then there are my wife's 2 laptops. A 2003 Compaq which we sold last year for only $200 less than we paid for it. And a new 2009 Compaq laptop. No issues. A G4 Mac Mini, rock solid. A PowerMac dual G5...replaced 2 main boards (would have been $1100 ea.) and a new graphics card ( then sold it for $2100 less than I paid). A 1.4 Ghz iBook...new Superdrive, new top case (speaker failed). Mac Pro, no issues. New Mac Mini...first was DOA, replacement has been rock solid. New Macbook...memory chip failed in the first month of use. To the balance add at least a half dozen PCs from work that had no hardware issues.
So, YMMV, but my experience says that my Macs have been less reliable than my PCs. I will acknowledge that I represent only a small sampling of users. So, again, I refer you to the HP, Dell, and Apple forums. There are lots of postings on each about hardware issues....only the Apple customers paid twice as much for their problems...except for the ones who got the 15% added discount as an apology from Apple...they only paid 70% more. I guess that is good service.
6&7) You got me about not being able to buy a PC with the exact specs as the new iMac for less than $2000. In particular, as much as I have looked, I can't find a PC monitor with a Yellow screen. That must be a Mac exclusive (sorry that was a cheap shot and you deserve better...I just couldn't resist
). My initial point was that if you have to have an iMac, then the iMac is the cheapest computer for you. But if you want more power, more expandability, a better graphics card, at a much lower cost...and you can live with any number of very nice monitors, then buy a PC. As you an see from my computer gallery above, there have been lots of times when I needed a Mac and I tolerated the inflated price. But I can recognize that it is an inflated price.
Finally, Dudeman, I thank you for the link you posted. It helps prove my point. The fact that 9 out of 10 computers costing over $1000 are Macs. It shows that one can get a tremendous number of tremendously powerful Windows computers for under $1000, so few people have to pay more than $1000 for a very good PC. While to get a Mac, few people can avoid paying less than $1000 for similar to lesser computing power.
My $10,000 purple and brown striped computer is not only the best selling and most economical purple and brown striped computer in the world, but it also has a 100% market share for purple and brown striped computers costing $10,000 or above. Just like the 27" iMac is the most economical and best selling aluminum and glass all in one, i5 based computer with a 2560x1440, 27 inch display, and a chicklet keyboard.
Dudeman, I think we agree on much more than appears at first blush.
1) There are more expensive computers than a Mac Mini....most of them being other Macs.
2) I will have to trust you re. the superiority of 64 bit OSX over 64 bit Windows. Unfortunately, OSX will only run in 32 bit mode on my Mac computers...even my original Mac Pro! And my 20008 Mac Mini and my son's Macbook. And never mind my 2004 PPC Mini...which Steve decided doesn't deserve any more OS updates. So all I can do is compare it to my 2007 HP laptop which is humming along very nicely running 64 bit Win7.
Regarding registry issues...we again agree that only Windows computers have those. Curiously, though, I have only had problems with .plist files on OSX. Odd how those things happen.
3) I think we also agree as to why over 90% of business computers are Windows based. Because when you total up their cost to buy and maintain, and the amount of work they can accomplish (at least in part due to their better software support), the Windows computers are a better buy. If Apple computers were the better buy, there would be a tidal wave of IT managers getting promoted after their decision to change to Macs. But there isn't.
I also acknowledge your point that there are many smaller companies where the owner may make the computer buying decision without same type of critical analysis of the computer buying decision as the IT departments of larger companies. Maybe the owner choosing a Mac is right for their circumstance, maybe not. But the vast majority of businesses have chosen, and they have chosen PCs.
4) On this point I think you don't understand the difference between Script-Kiddies playing at hacking, and real Hackers. You may be right that there are things inherent in OSX that can deter Script-kiddies. But a professional Hacker wants to infect thousands of machines quickly. Not onesy twosy. He wants to infect a machine, and then have that machine send out messages to hundreds of others. If he infects a Mac with a Mac virus, when that machine rebroadcasts the virus what does it see....on average, only 1 in 25 of the computers to which it broadcasts are going to be Macs and the rest will be Windows or another computer that is not subject to the Mac virus. So the virus would die. Not because the Mac is so virus resistant, but because they are so relatively rare that the Hacker can't find a critical concentration of Macs to infect. As a result, the Hackers focus on Windows computers.
5) Interesting challenge. We have different experiences. I'm writing this on a 12 year old PC running Windows ME (which is a dog). Still boots in about 45 seconds. Never have had it break down. Upgraded the processor once, and the hard drive a couple of times. Otherwise, same as the day it was built. I've already mentioned my 2007 HP laptop that I purchased refurbished. Did have to replace the screen power inverter a few months ago. Cost me $11.50. Then there are my wife's 2 laptops. A 2003 Compaq which we sold last year for only $200 less than we paid for it. And a new 2009 Compaq laptop. No issues. A G4 Mac Mini, rock solid. A PowerMac dual G5...replaced 2 main boards (would have been $1100 ea.) and a new graphics card ( then sold it for $2100 less than I paid). A 1.4 Ghz iBook...new Superdrive, new top case (speaker failed). Mac Pro, no issues. New Mac Mini...first was DOA, replacement has been rock solid. New Macbook...memory chip failed in the first month of use. To the balance add at least a half dozen PCs from work that had no hardware issues.
So, YMMV, but my experience says that my Macs have been less reliable than my PCs. I will acknowledge that I represent only a small sampling of users. So, again, I refer you to the HP, Dell, and Apple forums. There are lots of postings on each about hardware issues....only the Apple customers paid twice as much for their problems...except for the ones who got the 15% added discount as an apology from Apple...they only paid 70% more. I guess that is good service.
6&7) You got me about not being able to buy a PC with the exact specs as the new iMac for less than $2000. In particular, as much as I have looked, I can't find a PC monitor with a Yellow screen. That must be a Mac exclusive (sorry that was a cheap shot and you deserve better...I just couldn't resist
). My initial point was that if you have to have an iMac, then the iMac is the cheapest computer for you. But if you want more power, more expandability, a better graphics card, at a much lower cost...and you can live with any number of very nice monitors, then buy a PC. As you an see from my computer gallery above, there have been lots of times when I needed a Mac and I tolerated the inflated price. But I can recognize that it is an inflated price.Finally, Dudeman, I thank you for the link you posted. It helps prove my point. The fact that 9 out of 10 computers costing over $1000 are Macs. It shows that one can get a tremendous number of tremendously powerful Windows computers for under $1000, so few people have to pay more than $1000 for a very good PC. While to get a Mac, few people can avoid paying less than $1000 for similar to lesser computing power.
My $10,000 purple and brown striped computer is not only the best selling and most economical purple and brown striped computer in the world, but it also has a 100% market share for purple and brown striped computers costing $10,000 or above. Just like the 27" iMac is the most economical and best selling aluminum and glass all in one, i5 based computer with a 2560x1440, 27 inch display, and a chicklet keyboard.
