[jld]

Well I'm on the switch train at the moment. First an ipod, then a 12" PB, and now I'm thinking about a desktop. I've had a bunch of macs before, in the old days, and I've got this nagging feeling that Macs get outdated much faster than your average PC. I guess I feel like I could spend $1000 building a pretty respectable PC, and it would be a decent usable computer for at least 3 years. By that time it will be old and slow, but since I mostly surf the web, email, and word process, it's ok. My current desktop is a Pentium 3, 700mhz, XP Pro, 512MB SDRAM, and 80 Gigs of HD space. It's just getting a little old. I guess I feel a little strange spending at least $2K, and feeling like a couple years from now it will just be slow and outdated. What should I be thinking?

[Kenneth]

Well.. it depends.
Remember the G4 stuck at 500Mhz for 18 months... outdated faster? no.

My first Mac is a Performa 6116CD in 1996.
It has a PowerPC 601 at 60Mhz. complete system for ~$1500. I am still using it.

Last year, I bought the Dual PowerMac G4 1.25Ghz (FW800)/Combo drive with 17" Studio Display for ~$2700 ($1999 + $699) (mid-range system at that time)

Now.. the mid-range PowerMac is the Dual 1.8GHz SuperDrive.. costs $2499 without display. However, everything inside is packed with latest technology (e.g. 64-bit CPU, fast FSB, PCI-X, SATA...)

IMHO, since Apple switched to IBM for CPU.. I believe that they can produce/design a better and faster CPU more quicker than Motorola did for G4.

[djohnson]

Outdated fast? No Way! This comes from experience both building and programming on Macs and PCs for years. Oh yeah, and getting my BS in Computer Science too It is my experience that Macs last a lot longer then a PC, both in parts life and in usability. I am still programming on an old 1997 beige G3 running at 466Mhz and OS X 10.2.8 It doesnt feel super fast, but it works great. My wife has a PC from about 1.5 years later that we literally cannot use for anything. Of course it is a Compaq... but still. Buy the best Mac you can afford, you will love it!!!

[Starry Night]

Originally posted by jld:
Well I'm on the switch train at the moment. First an ipod, then a 12" PB, and now I'm thinking about a desktop. I've had a bunch of macs before, in the old days, and I've got this nagging feeling that Macs get outdated much faster than your average PC. I guess I feel like I could spend $1000 building a pretty respectable PC, and it would be a decent usable computer for at least 3 years. By that time it will be old and slow, but since I mostly surf the web, email, and word process, it's ok. My current desktop is a Pentium 3, 700mhz, XP Pro, 512MB SDRAM, and 80 Gigs of HD space. It's just getting a little old. I guess I feel a little strange spending at least $2K, and feeling like a couple years from now it will just be slow and outdated. What should I be thinking?

You have it backwards. Macs get outdated slower than PC's and this is reflected in the higher resale values of Macs.

[jld]

I'll be honest and say that my first mac desktop (I had a PB 100 in 5th grade, ~1991 :-) I'm old skool) was an LC475 which was practically outdated when I got it in 1996, and lasted me only a year or two. I also knew nothing about maintaining computers then and I'm sure I was flogging the CPU with a bunch of useless apps.

I'm just having a hard time justifying spending $2K+ on a new computer when I could build myself a XP machine for less than half that.

[Truepop]

I have at my home in Texas an iMac 400DV that was a small step above the low-end of the low-end in 2000 and still use it with 10.1 when I come down from TN.

It works wonders and if I wasn't in to video editing as much as I am (my college major - BS in Mass Comm really) so the quicker the better.

As not too much of a distance from it is my PowerBook G4 running at 400MHz which does wonders with FCP 2 in OS 9.2. I love these machines even if they do run at 400MHz.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by jld:
I'll be honest and say that my first mac desktop (I had a PB 100 in 5th grade, ~1991 :-) I'm old skool) was an LC475 which was practically outdated when I got it in 1996, and lasted me only a year or two.

It was already 3 years old when you got it. And it was sold as a low-end machine.

Doesn't that say a lot?

[RevEvs]

Well the computer wont actually get any slower If you buy it now and its fast, then its just as fast in 1, 2, 3.. 50 years!

Also, if you are just going on the net, word processing, email etc.....

A decent mac now should last you quite a while..

revs

[Love Calm Quiet]

Now that we've made the leap from G4 to G5, we've finally hit the HUGEST change qualitatively that we're going to see for a few years. And now that there's been a little time to wait for bugs to surface in rev.A G5s (have there even been any to speak of?) it's a great time to be investing in one (even more so as soon as the next speed bump arrives in a couple months).

Another huge plus about the Mac keeping its value: Apple is continuing to streamline the efficiency of the OS (as opposed to bloating it) so that with each new release everything runs MORE efficiently (even on older machines). Additionally, we are only just beginning to see applications optimized for G5: the best is yet to come.

In fact, for their desktop CPUs, I'm having trouble imagining what sort of enhancements Apple's going to be able to offer in the next couple years to get the average G5 owner to upgrade. Take the mid-range DP 1.8 GHz: few applications available now tax it; competition-obsessed gamers seem like some of the few who would dream up a "need" to move to a 2.3 GHz DP, for example.

[driven]

I generally go through 3 PCs during the usably life of 1 mac.

I'm still using a 2000 G4 Cube. During that time I've used 3 PCs that have come and gone.

I want a G5, but it's still not a "NEED" thing yet.

[CIA]

Rev. A iMacs are still fetching a pretty penny on eBay. I'd say that's a pretty good indication of Apple's value in the long run. Would you pay $150 for a PII 233?

[Arkham_c]

I bought a Powermac 7500/100 with 16 MB RAM around August 1995. I upgraded the processor in it at least 8 times, added hard drives, even moved the motherboard to a different case. Now it's a G3/400 with 640MB of RAM and 50GB of disk space, and I could still be using it if I so chose.

I bought an original tangerine iBook/300 when they first came out (late 1999). That was 4 years ago. I've moved on, but that machine is now on its third owner running OS X 10.2 Jaguar and working great.

I bought an iBook/600/DVD when they first came out (11/2001). I use this machine every day, all day to write java code at work, check email and surf the net at home, etc. I expect to use it for another year or two and then replace it. So that will put it at 3-4 years of use for me, and it will still be usable by the person I sell it to at that time.

I just bought a Dual 2GHz G5 in September to replace a G4/450 that I had gotten used and had been using for a couple of years. I expect that G5 to last a long time. It's fast, it's got lots of expandability (6 empty memory slots, an empty hard drive slot, and 3 empty PCI slots), and it's a great machine. Apple is really on a roll these days, and I think now is a great time to consider a new Mac.

[DrBoar]

I would say that both mac and PCs last longer now than during the 68030/386 days. Then a faster computer meant faster scrolling in Word and things like that now things like that is very fast on a several years old computer.
I have OS X 10.1.5 running on a 7300/200, it is slow but still usable. I would like to know if XP installs on a Pentium II/200

If you stay out of games a Mac (and a PC) will last you a long time. With games you can get very nerdy and overclock your liquidcooled rig that you replace faster than some change underwear.

I would say that Macs lasted longer than PCs during the OS 7 to OS 9 days, now OS X really bisect the powermacs.

How they fare in the future relly depend on how the x86 & G5 and later G6 and Itanium ramp up and that is anyones guess. My hope is that IBM 970 and 980 will ramp very steeply and totaly kill the dual 2-3 GHz CPUs of today as soon as possible

[IFLY2HIGH]

I got my Quicksilver dual 1 ghz machine when it was top of the line model. I have yet to have aneed to replace it. Working as fast and hard as it has from day one and I havn't needed the speed for a g5 yet. Don't get me wrong I'd love to have a G5, but when I got what works now great why change it lol...

[The Ancient One]

Outdated faster? Not hardly! My 1988 Mac II was still running when It was retired in 2001. That's when my wife got my 1995 8500/120 and I got a dual 800. The 8500 is still running perfectly, but ii's starting to show its age. I think I may be in the market again this fall.

[dlefebvre]

I have my G4 400Mhz since september 99, I upgraded the processor to 1Ghz in september 02 and plan to change my computer when Apple comes out with a dual 3Ghz G5. So far this is my 4th Mac in the last 20 years . At 5 years each they outlived many PCs my friends had over the years.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by jld:
Well I'm on the switch train at the moment. First an ipod, then a 12" PB, and now I'm thinking about a desktop. I've had a bunch of macs before, in the old days, and I've got this nagging feeling that Macs get outdated much faster than your average PC. I guess I feel like I could spend $1000 building a pretty respectable PC, and it would be a decent usable computer for at least 3 years. By that time it will be old and slow, but since I mostly surf the web, email, and word process, it's ok. My current desktop is a Pentium 3, 700mhz, XP Pro, 512MB SDRAM, and 80 Gigs of HD space. It's just getting a little old. I guess I feel a little strange spending at least $2K, and feeling like a couple years from now it will just be slow and outdated. What should I be thinking?

I think Macs get outdated slower, if anything. I don't know of any other OS, free or commercial, where performance has been increased for older processors over time. I was amazed after upgrading my dad's G3 iMac from the first release of OSX to Jaguar. By comparison, Windows XP is murder on Pentium II processors and even Pentium III processors drag under relatively mild loads.

Also, Macs seem to retain a tremendous amount of resale value, pretty much unheard of in the PC world.

[DeathToWindows]

1996 - Mac II
1997 - Mac IIfx
1999 (JAN) - Quadra 650
1999 (OCT) - iMac DV SE [died sept 2003]
2001 - QS 733

A mac lasts me 3-4 years from new. Now I want a DP2.0/1.8

[dtriska]

The one thing people (especially IT departments) don't get is that Macs are cheaper over time. They have a lower Total Cost of Ownership. This is because they last longer.

So, no, Macs don't become outdated faster than PCs. It's the other way around. I've still using my Power Mac 450 DP from August, 2000, and the speed is just fine for what I do. So, any Mac should last at least 3 or 4 years.

With that said, remember that Apple's going to be pushing the G5 hard in the next year. So, if you want to be sure your Mac will last for many years, wait until the new G5s are released this summer and pick up a dual.

[Kenneth]

Originally posted by CIA:
Rev. A iMacs are still fetching a pretty penny on eBay. I'd say that's a pretty good indication of Apple's value in the long run. Would you pay $150 for a PII 233?

Talking about the resale value of Mac.. Windows users or the PC itself will never get this.

I sold 2 iMac (tray-loader) and TiBook/400 on eBay and received great results.

I got close to $500 for a loaded iMac Rev. A 233Mhz in late 2002 and around $400 for the iMac Rev. D 333Mhz several months after. Then sold the TiBook/400 for $1300 on eBay during the Summer/2002.

[UpgradeManiac]

My 7600/120 from 1996 was just replaced with a G5 1.8. I'd have to wholeheartedly agree with everyone else about the lower cost of ownership with Macs.

However, I'm wondering what creates longevity in a computer (Mac or PC notwithstanding). In the PC world, gaming seemed to be the driving force for upgrading - the quest for more fps, antialiasing, anisotropic filtering, etc.

Does code expand to fill the space allowable? Is Moore's Law still relevant? Has planned obselescence been getting shorter?

My philosophical $0.02

[tooki]

In businesses, PCs are replaced on average every 2 years, Macs every 3 years.

tooki

[Superchicken]

my iMac Rev D from 1998 I think it was lasted me till august of this past year, it just missed a full four years. I only started really wanting to upgrade last year some time. I mean sure my Mac was getting slower but really it still works for what you want, and even with new software. I used it when my iBook's power cord broke (my fault) to type my exams and it worked fine, a bit of a lag under Jaguar but that's about it. And when I say a bit, I mean a bit. I could still hook up someone else in dorm with this Mac and they'd be fine.

[moreschemata]

I don't think it's a useful (generalizable) question. For an individual user "sensible" upgrading needs depend on release of critical software that needs to (or can) take advantage of the greater horsepower that becomes available. If you're in a field (like AV) where everything is trying to go bigger, faster, more complex all the time, then whenever the performance available jumps up you're going to make money by saving time.

[superfula]

Originally posted by tooki:
In businesses, PCs are replaced on average every 2 years, Macs every 3 years.

tooki

I've read Macs are replaced every 4 years...on the average.

I'm using an 867mhz Quicksilver which was released in July 2001, and I can still sell it for $900. Comparatively, a 2gig P4 was released roughly the same time in 2001. You could maybe get $300 for that now. While both will do just fine by today's standards, I get more out of my investment in the long run. It makes the new Mac I buy that much cheaper.

[ginoledesma]

Your dilemma of being able to spend half the price for a brand new PC compared to a new G5 is a different story altogether -- that's the choice most Mac buyers make _every time_ they consider getting a new Mac.

I started out with a Mac LC575 in 1995 and its still able to do today what it did several years ago -- namely do word processing, basic photo editing, email, and surf the web. My mom would actually consider using it over her newer Pentium 4/1.2 PC all because of Claris Emailer 1.1v3, by far the best email client for her. It doesn't have the bells and whistles of newer PCs, but the "use value" is still very much there.

I find that it's good practice (for me) to change MAcs every 4 years, not because there is a need to, but because its economically sound -- a Mac that old still fetches a considerable price, at least enough to cover the initial cost of getting a new one, which should "keep you at the edge of things." PCs that old will rarely fetch a good price. Sure, Pentium III/500s and the like are usable, but by today's standards most everyone judges PCs by the performance they churn out using games. To be fair, however, old PCs make for decent basic machines. If they run Windows 2000, all better, since I find Windows 98 too troublesome for my taste.

At least Mac OS, though buggy, will work if you leave it alone.

[aehaas]

I am currently typing on a 3 year old Mac desktop. I am probably going to get a new one soon. I am like one of those people who gets a new car every year or two, just because I want to, not because I need.

This Mac does the job. There is no reason to upgrade. I do not need to do so. It's a bandwagon thing. Everybody wants a G5 so I will get one too.

aehaas

[Joe Cool]

No.
Im using a QS dual 800.. I put 1.5gb of ram in it and it is still is kicking ass. Its not quite a dual G5 but hey i have had it for a few years now..

[djohnson]

My beige G3 still takes 5 minutes to compile anything I will take a new computer please. Anyone offering one? Maybe donations? Considering my wifes 450Mhz AMD is worthless and my 466Mhz G3 is still working, I think macs are worth a lot more. Of course I might as well then convince some of my friends of this...

[murbot]

I'm using a PowerMac that just turned 3 years old, a dual 533. Our 3 year old PC at work is in shambles, and this G4 is like a new machine.

I still can't believe how fast this computer is - being a duallie certainly helps, but I have to keep reminding myself that it's a 3 year old computer. It could easily be a very productive machine for 2 or 3 more years.

[Kenneth]

Originally posted by murbot:
I'm using a PowerMac that just turned 3 years old, a dual 533. Our 3 year old PC at work is in shambles, and this G4 is like a new machine.

I still can't believe how fast this computer is - being a duallie certainly helps, but I have to keep reminding myself that it's a 3 year old computer. It could easily be a very productive machine for 2 or 3 more years.

Dual 533?
Am I missing something over in the AI board?

[Eriamjh]

Macs are far more usable far longer than PCs. However, if it's games you want to play, with the speed of the G5 increasing faster than the G4 did, newer games may not be playable on even a 1 year old mac.

Nobody said the mac was the best gaming machine. For general use, though, they last longer.

[drjoe]

No Way!!! While I use an upgraded Sawtooth G4 [800 Mz processor] as a desktop machine, for a server I use an 8500, circa 1995, as a compined web/print/file/mail server with a 550 G3 processor, a pair of 18 GB scsi drives, usb, fast ethernet and running 10.2.8 Runs like a champ and going on 9 years old!!! What more could one want from a 'vintage' machine.

[JCT]

Hah, I also did the iPod -> 12" PB thing. I'll bet that this is becoming a common trajectory for switchers.

I really think I see a switch coming.. ...

This is an interesting and very informative thread, I had noticed that my Mac-head colleagues seemed to rarely upgrade their machines (and never seem to complain that they are slow either).

I think this is OS-driven in many ways. I've built over 30 PCs in the past several years (work and home) and while WinXP is a serious improvement it is no joke that it needs to be wiped and re-installed every 6-8 months or it runs like hell. Even on a fire-breathing machine.

I was at my university's vendor show yesterday (at work I have a rep as a serious PC wonk) and apparently I was "seen" having an extended discussion with the Apple rep. Word travels fast because I've been taking some serious ribbing.

Wait until they find out I'm sizing up a dual G5...


JT

[Electric Zombie]

There is a misconception that PCs are a lot cheaper to upgrade than a Macintosh because in quite a few PCs you can upgrade single components until you can't upgrade them anymore, at which point you buy a new computer.

The Macintosh has a very high resale value. You can expect to get half of what you payed for it when you're ready to get rid of it in a few years (if that fits your upgrade scheduel.) Most PCs won't get you more than a couple hundred dollars by the time you need a new one... and that's if you're lucky.

Check out eBay for a good estimate. I see graphite G4s still going for $1000, and those computers are 3 years old.

I think your best bet right now is to invest in one of the upcoming revs of G5s, don't bother with the G4 or even the current G5. There will be some significant bug fixes in the next rev and I'm sure you'll be happy with the computer for years to come.

The reason I say G5 and not the G4 is mostly because of Mac OS X. As Apple updates the OS and ports more of the code base to take advantage of the 64-bit processor and all the associated goodies, you can expect the G5 to perform significatnly better with each new update. A G5 is a great investment right now especially with Apple on the gun with very frequent OS X updates.

[TiDual]

Aren't those Intel machines still 32bit ... there you go ... outdated before you've even built it :-)

But more seriously, the decision to go Mac or PC is not really a "hardware" decision for your average user (i.e. the things we do don't use what's there in terms of compute power). It's all about the OS ... that is what determines 90% of your "computing experience". If you can stand, or even like XP, then get a PC. If you prefer OS X, then only a Mac can run it. Simple.

As the other have made clear, Macs certainly don't date faster ... in fact, the performance enhancements on OS X mean my old G4 are still very useable machines.

[typoon]

Well here at work I'm using an "older Machine" It's P3 850. the thing is the BIOS on the Motherboard doesn't allow me to upgrade to a drive larger than 20 Gigs without an upgrade. My Older 450 which I recently upgraded to 800 MHz can hold a MUCH larger drive than this PC that I have at work. Obsolete is quicly is not something I would worry about on a Mac. I mean a Blue and White G3 PowerMac can take a drive larger than 20 Gigs.

[Jerome]

I sold my Rev.A G4 last year, it was the slowest G4 ever made, a 350Mhz. I sold it for half the price I paid for more than 3 years before, and the only upgardes I made was some Ram and a modest HD. Very good value indeed. It was still very usable too, I just needed more horsepower to work with After Effects and Final Cut Pro.

[lz3broc]

I've been through many Mac's since my conversion in 1995.

My best friend is still knocking away on a PowerMac 7300 using it for basic Photoshop, PDF creation, and Writing Novels and a Screenplay.

I've tried to help him to upgrade him to a G4 and OS9 or OSX for that matter. It took 2 years of hammering to just get him to move from Photoshop 2.5.1 to Photoshop 5 and Mac OS 7.5.3 to Mac OS 8.5.

[lz3broc]

Originally posted by typoon:
Well here at work I'm using an "older Machine" It's P3 850. the thing is the BIOS on the Motherboard doesn't allow me to upgrade to a drive larger than 20 Gigs without an upgrade. My Older 450 which I recently upgraded to 800 MHz can hold a MUCH larger drive than this PC that I have at work. Obsolete is quicly is not something I would worry about on a Mac. I mean a Blue and White G3 PowerMac can take a drive larger than 20 Gigs.

I know. My BWG3 which still gets used has a 120GB HD in it right now. along with a speedy OWC 500MHz G4 upgrade and 1GB RAM it runs Panther fairly well.

[flink]

Interesting how few posters here have bought the new G5s----me being one of them.
tough decision of keeping mac or going Pc.

[Ashley Grayson]

I have a dual 1.42 running Panther at my main business office. At the office where I work about a day a week I'm perfectly satisfied with a 233MHz Beige G3 running Jaguar. I don't do PhotoShop on the old machine but it runs Safari and mail just fine.

My wife's 450 MHz Cube is subjectivly as fast as the dual 1.4MHz system. Macs don't go out of date.

Just yesterday, I asked a friend if he wanted a new Panther system. He said:

My old 7600 works like it was new, so does my old 6400, as well as the two
old notebooks I've got. The rest of the family uses a PC, and we've gone thru
about 4 of those in the same time period. Damn Macs don't give you a very
good excuse to buy new ones!

[zzimbob]

Originally posted by jld:
I'll be honest and say that my first mac desktop (I had a PB 100 in 5th grade, ~1991 :-) I'm old skool) was an LC475 which was practically outdated when I got it in 1996, and lasted me only a year or two. I also knew nothing about maintaining computers then and I'm sure I was flogging the CPU with a bunch of useless apps.

I'm just having a hard time justifying spending $2K+ on a new computer when I could build myself a XP machine for less than half that.

You might be able to build yourself an XP machine for a lot less, but you still have to run XP and all of the other Micro$oft crap. You miss out on the ease-of-use, relative virus immunity, elegance, etc. of the Mac OS. In other words, you get what you pay for.

[KappaBandit]

Outdated meaning what is the real question.

Is the product line refreshed faster? No, its not, you can check dates of PC OEMs like Dell, Gateway, and HP/Comaq, as well as Acer, eMachines, and the like. You will find that Apple refreshes their product lines faster than some and slower than other. So Macs are not replaced in the product line faster than PCs are.

Is the Mac less able to do its job sooner? No, Macs have an average life span of 5-7 years in the home and 4-6 years in a business, schools replace Macs even less often, averaging 7-9 years and often longer. PCs are replaced on average every 3 years in the home and every 3-5 years in a business or school.

Is the Macs less backwards compatible? No, while some said this because of the move to Mac OS X, we must look at a bigger picture if we want accurate results. Apple supports the current OS a Mac for a total of six years from the time the Mac was introduced, even with the Mac OS X transition this is largely accurate. Beige G3s and Wallstreets were six years old when 10.3 came out, the x600 line of Power Macs ran Mac OS 9 until 9.1. Mac OS 9.1 was current until Apple released 9.2 in 2002. Again, six years since the release of the x600 line of Power Macs.

Another thing to consider is that generally speaking software requirements stay lower for longer on the Macintosh platform than on Windows platform. AppleWorks 5 supported System 6 and would run in 2-4MB of RAM, that was the case until 1999/2000 and the release of AppleWorks 6 which required 8.5.1 [or was it 8.6?]. Another good example is that a Mac user could continue to use Mac OS 7.6.1 or 8.1 on a 68K based Mac until 1998 and be able to run all popular current software. By 1998 MS Office 98 required PowerPC, AppleWorks 6 would be released a year later and would also require PowerPC, however that is four years after the move to PowerPC, quite some time. This proves true when looking at third party software also. There are some exceptions once one looks at Mac OS X, however, much of that can be explained from a developer standpoint that many developers were waiting for particular aspects of Mac OS X to develop before releasing their product.

Lastly, there is a good counter argument that most Windows users do not upgrade their software, therefore requires of new software are not important. However, this is flawed, many Mac users do not upgrade their software to the most current either, and one most compare two equal things, therefore one can either assume that whether using Macintosh or Windows the user will keep their software up-to-date or they will not.

Also there is another factor playing into the discussion, Macs tend to get new technology first, if I was a PC user and I wanted integrated wireless I had to wait for Centrino to come out in 2003. If I was a Mac user I could have bought integrated wireless in 2000. While there was a non-integrated wireless option on PCs in 2000, that same option was available to Macs as well, and it was equally costly on both platforms, therefore it is a poor example. Another example would be integrated ethernet, most PCs still do not have onboard ethernet, instead they use up a PCI slot, gigabit ethernet is unheard of on pro-level PCs still today, while it is available, it is far from a standard option. Pro level Macs have had gigabit ethernet integrated since the second revision G4 in late 2000. Mac users therefore often get new technology first and therefore have it longer [since new technology doesn't go away, whoever has something first never loses it and therefore always has it longer]. If new technology makes a computer more capable, that means that a Mac is capable in the area of that new technology longer than a PC.

An example would be buying a new Mac that came with FireWire for home DV production in 1998. I could buy a PC at the same time, that PC would likely come without FireWire to do that same job. Therefore out of the gate the PC is less capable and when PCs do come with FireWire, someone doing that task is likely to replace it. This is not the perfect example as FireWire can be added via a PCI slot, but most consumers spend very little in the way of after market upgrades. We could compare a newer PC with FireWire to that 1998 PowerMac but that simply shows that the Mac has lasted longer than the first PC and is now largely on par with the second.

In the end do Macs last longer? Yes, there are exceptions, especially among those of us who gather at forums, upgrade often, tweak our systems, and keep up with the latest and greatest news if not hardware and software, but over all, a Mac in the home is worth three PCs on the shelf.

Cheers,

The Bandit

[NDBounce]

First off, let me say I am a Mac Fan, and I love my mac.

BUT...I did inherit a Dell P3 400Mhz machine recently. And I must say...I t works quite nice. It is just as old as my rev A ibook, but:

it load web pages faster
it runs dreamweaver MX and is usable for doing this (my ibook ain't)
it does not crash

To be honest, when I work now (do web development) I use my PC, as it is just more responsive than my ibook). AND I HATE TO SAY THAT.

Now, let me add to that. I am running Win 2K on my Dell, and Jag on my iBook. In all honesty, I believe that I would find my iBook equally responsive if Iused OS 9 (or my PC as unresponsive if I used XP).

I do think these speed tests people are posting are a little unfair, as no one seems to mention the fact that going from 9 to X was a huge hit in speed, especially for the joe average who wants to surf, email and wordprocess only. I am always amazed at how fast my sister's ibook (rev b, still 300mhz) is compared to mine (rev A also 300mhz) and that is solely based on the fact that she is running 9.

What I will agree with, however, is that macs hold their value a lot better than a pc, and that they offer a much nicer experience all around. I also feel that for the average user who wants to surf, email and word process, macs are much harder to muck up (I have yet to see a mac with spyware, weatherbug, registry issues, etc). Macs also install/uninstall applications in a much easier manner (I cannot tell you how many times the add/remove hardware feature did not work properly)

But judging by the fact that I have three machines that are over 4 years old, 1 mac and 2 PCs (note I have never purchased a PC, I just inherit the "dead machines" from work), I will say that you can make any machine last if you give it proper care, however, proper care for a PC is more work than for a mac.

[Avon]

It has been my experience that a PowerMac, or whatever is at the top of the totem-pole at the time will last at least 4 full years for my use.

I used a PM7500 for 4 years and I am now on the 4th year of my G4 400 and itching for a dual 1.8! I could easily go another year on this machine, the only time I feel its age is when I am making a movie or editing a large image file.

I find Macs way outlast PCs. Especially now, being that the OS keeps getting faster as opposed to windows witch keeps getting slower.

$2000 bucks every 4 years is a bargain if you ask me for the best hardware and software in the world.

A similar Dell would cost the same anyway. If you prefer to build your own PC, then it will even cost more if you use quality equipment. Cheap stuff it just that, you get what you pay for.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by tooki:
In businesses, PCs are replaced on average every 2 years, Macs every 3 years.

tooki

Only if your business has unlimited funds. Leasing used to be popular - 3 year lease. Many businesses are on a 3-5 year PC replacement cycle.

They don't upgrade as often as you would think.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by KappaBandit:
[B], if I was a PC user and I wanted integrated wireless I had to wait for Centrino to come out in 2003. If I was a Mac user I could have bought integrated wireless in 2000. While

Not true - many PC laptops came with integrated wireless before Centrino. I have an IBM A30p (Pentium 3/1.1Ghz), 2001 vintage that has integrated 802.11b. In addition most of the new AthlonXP laptops have integrated wireless, and they don't use Centrino.

Centrino is just Intel's marketing-speek for integrated wireless.

[Kym]

I'm typing this on a 4 year old G4/350, using 10.3, at home. At work I use a dual 2GHz G5, and I find it amazing how useable the old machine is still. It still gets used for iMovies, happy-snap editing in Photoshop, burning CDs, web browsing. My G4/667 TiBook gets used mainly for email, Airport enabled web stuff, and downloading/editing pics from digital camera away from home or studio. iSync is great to keep them all linked and up to date.

I think one key to longevity is not so much CPU performance, as plenty of RAM and disc space.

And yes, Macs are often years ahead in technology and being a complete package, compared with PCs, which is a big factor.

As for PC longevity, I want to throw most of them away within a week of using them!

[KappaBandit]

Originally posted by mbryda:
Not true - many PC laptops came with integrated wireless before Centrino. I have an IBM A30p (Pentium 3/1.1Ghz), 2001 vintage that has integrated 802.11b. In addition most of the new AthlonXP laptops have integrated wireless, and they don't use Centrino.

Centrino is just Intel's marketing-speek for integrated wireless.

I am well aware of the nature of Centrino it was perhaps a bad example as I did not know the release date of the IBM model you mentioned, however, my point stands. I used Centrino because its a well known name and people would understand the difference between adding a WaveLAN card and having it built in.

Likewise regarding business refresh cycles, I was not talking about leases, I was talking about replacement based on a IDC report from last year. And whether it be a lease or otherwise, the estimate I quoted and the one you gave are very close and still illustrate the point I was making.

Cheers,

The Bandit

PS

That model ThinkPad was released December 21, 2001 ... so whether it be from IBM or Intel, PC users waited for integrated wireless until at least 2002, unless you got that ThinkPad for Christmas or something, in which case I spose you are right about it being available in 2001.